Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 19:36:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Tim Vanderhoek <hoek@hwcn.org> To: rdkeys@csemail.cropsci.ncsu.edu Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Suggestions from a unix dummy..... Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.970825191415.20135A-100000@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca> In-Reply-To: <9708251652.AA129381@csemail.cropsci.ncsu.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 25 Aug 1997 rdkeys@csemail.cropsci.ncsu.edu wrote:
> Applying unix dummies dunce cap and sitting on yon stool in the corner.....
>
> What about setting up the ftp install scripts and the archive trees
> something like.....
>
> FreeBSD/x.x.x.x-release/
> FreeBSD/x.x.x.x-release/binary
> FreeBSD/x.x.x.x-release/sources
[repeated for -stable and -current]
I'm not sure that this wins us very much. The source for every
version of every file is available via CVS (there is a nice
web-interface on www.freebsd.org). Separate binary-source dirs
really don't buy much (actually, they probably cost more since
more ftp connections would have to be negotiated).
> FreeBSD/bootdisks/
Unfortunately, bootdisks _really_ are tied to releases. Even if
they could be separated, that would mostly create confusions and
problems (you need min. version x to install ver.x of FreeBSD,
and don't forget to report your bootdisk version in any questions
you ask).
> Move the releng thing into current-stable. It is a good idea, but
> its nomenclature is confusing.
"releng", I believe, comes mostly from the nature of the CVS
repository. 2.2 is developed, giving you 2.2-releng, 2.1 is
developed, giving you 2.1-releng. -stable is the correct term.
> Move the development work from 3.0 into current-development. It is
> a good idea, but 3.0 is not yet 3.0, but it is ``current-development''.
BINGO! You win a prize! Now, if everyone else can just be
taught that. The unfortunate problem is that -current needs a
version number of some sort. It's definately not 2.x, and, since
it will eventually be 3.x, it identifies itself as such.
However, it should _never_ be referred to as FreeBSD 3.0, only as
FreeBSD-970901-SNAP or FreeBSD-current.
> A VERSION file in appropriate directories would tell you the current
> version number for any current tree, or release tree, and could be
> parsed by the install scripts to confirm the validity of the tree,
> if need be.
$ uname -r
> Forget about snaps, except as archive trees for the normal time
> snaps are kept around in the archive subdirectories, just for reference.
> The naming blows up the install scripts if your install disk is only
> a little out of sync. It is a good idea, but the nomenclature in
> naming is marginal.
There's already -release, -current, -stable, so why not -snap?
> Put all the ports in one place, and make any port buildable on any
You mean in one big directory? Um. Hm. No. :-)
> release or any current-stable or current-development box. Maybe
> this would make many less headaches in out of sync ports. It should
> be entirely possible in principle and probably in practice to make any
> port build on any release from 2.1.7.1 up through the latest current
Officially ports are only supported on -stable. This is to keep
the amount of work manageable. However, if you find a port that
doesn't work on -current or any other release (PROVIDED you are
using an up-to-date bsd.port.mk and friends), you are encouraged
to send patches in a pr.
> That way, all the install scripts install from ONE AND ONLY ONE
> pointer. You don't wind up with your snap vaporized a week down the
I'm not sure I see how you solved that ("snap vapourized")
problem. Keeping snaps hanging around forever is not really an
option. I've found from empirical evidence that it's only a
minor (if at all) problem. Besides, -snap is not -release; if
you install -snap, you should be prepared to reinstall shortly
down the road.
> road. YOU ALWAYS GET THE CURRENT SNAP FROM ANY INSTALL DISK (verrrrrry
> important and goooooood for us dummy folks --- saveum lotsa headscratchums).
dummy folks shouldn't install -snap. :-) Don't forget: -snap is
-current.
--
Outnumbered? Maybe. Outspoken? Never!
tIM...HOEk
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.3.96.970825191415.20135A-100000>