Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2016 14:12:52 +0200 From: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> To: Torsten Zuehlsdorff <mailinglists@toco-domains.de>, Vincent Hoffman-Kazlauskas <vince@unsane.co.uk>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: old ports/packages Message-ID: <574ED144.1050603@quip.cz> In-Reply-To: <c71c19de-f712-6116-cdb3-10580054ab23@toco-domains.de> References: <03cc4012-026e-c007-09e1-ee45524f1b95@elischer.org> <B32DD056A6281C191CD35AA2@ogg.in.absolight.net> <c528a76d-5b94-01a3-f27e-7d174faf544e@freebsd.org> <1FAFDF989841D03604BB448B@atuin.in.mat.cc> <7b8d22c6-1fed-d517-9f89-693b88dfc358@freebsd.org> <20160504070341.GV740@mail0.byshenk.net> <3dfd6fea-da32-b922-65d1-f64b8e113112@toco-domains.de> <6e340f95-6d10-4991-0cd6-95d336e2f044@gjunka.com> <3e55c7d8-801c-a2b3-e92e-9945e896142b@toco-domains.de> <5809f808-8b16-93ed-5351-828a7d68eb2b@unsane.co.uk> <c71c19de-f712-6116-cdb3-10580054ab23@toco-domains.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Torsten Zuehlsdorff wrote on 06/01/2016 11:07: > On 31.05.2016 15:59, Vincent Hoffman-Kazlauskas wrote: [...] >> To be fair the support is last release + 2 years, supporting a minor >> version for more than 2 years seems unreasonable, compare to say redhat >> a major commercial vendor. > > If you want to be fair: this is not true. This would be true, if 10.1, > 10.2 or 10.3 for example were minor-updates. But they were not. The > "minor updates" needs installing thousands of patches, updating all your > jails and sometimes all your ports too. It sometimes throw you out of > your server, because an SSH-Update changed the config and no key will > work anymore. In the last years i encounter a number of such unpleasant > issues in such "minor updates". Yes, there are issues with SSH config changes but I think they are not intended and was made by human errors. > And if i calculate the time for such an "minor update" and hold it > against the time needed for a "major update" there is nearly no > difference. Same for occurred problems, needed changes, etc. There is > just no difference between an update from for example 9.2 to 9.3 or 9.3 > to 10.0. At least its the same. There is a main difference - if you upgraded from 9.2 to 9.3, you don't need to recompile (reinstall) all ports, but if you upgraded from 9.3 to 10.x you need to reinstall all your packages and then remove old 9.x libraries from the base system. If I should count the number of problems with updates / upgrades, there are few of them with base system upgrades from 6.x - 8.x to 9.x to 10.1 to 10.2 to 10.3 (yes we run machines originally installed as 6.x now running 10.3 with many intermediate upgrades) but there are really many of them with ports / packages. Ports are moving target and you need to upgrade them more often because of security related fixes in newer versions. So even if FreeBSD releases will have 5 years of security patches support, our main work time will still be spent with upgrading packages and solving problems with versions & config changes for each package. Miroslav Lachman
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?574ED144.1050603>