Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 09:01:02 -0400 From: Paul Mather <paul@gromit.dlib.vt.edu> To: Daniel Braniss <danny@cs.huji.ac.il> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Michelle Sullivan <michelle@sorbs.net>, Daniel Kalchev <daniel@digsys.bg> Subject: Re: [HEADSUP] pkg(8) is now the only package management tool Message-ID: <358B9E99-5E02-47BA-9E30-045986150966@gromit.dlib.vt.edu> In-Reply-To: <C4EC1A3A-6EB1-4EE1-ACEA-12C8E203991C@cs.huji.ac.il> References: <20140901195520.GB77917@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <54050D07.4010404@sorbs.net> <CAOFF%2BZ1MOr9-rYbwHYWqBKjMvRPwUnew4jThEoJ_WkoTmwyNsQ@mail.gmail.com> <540522A3.9050506@sorbs.net> <54052891.5000104@my.hennepintech.edu> <54052DFA.4030808@freebsd.org> <54053372.6020009@my.hennepintech.edu> <5405890F.8080804@freebsd.org> <CAF-3MvNBWSEWF-HarwF0xcXQgo=7-dO%2BtvLMO1maELPY0RVhQQ@mail.gmail.com> <20140902125256.Horde.uv31ztwymThxUZ-OYPQoBw1@webmail.df.eu> <5405AE54.60809@sorbs.net> <1D2B4A91-E76C-43A0-BE75-D926357EF1AF@gmail.com> <5405E4F5.4090902@sorbs.net> <5406BD65.705@digsys.bg> <5406ED34.7090301@sorbs.net> <5406F00C.6090504@digsys.bg> <C4EC1A3A-6EB1-4EE1-ACEA-12C8E203991C@cs.huji.ac.il>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sep 3, 2014, at 8:28 AM, Daniel Braniss <danny@cs.huji.ac.il> wrote: >=20 > On Sep 3, 2014, at 1:40 PM, Daniel Kalchev <daniel@digsys.bg> wrote: >=20 >>=20 >> On 03.09.14 13:28, Michelle Sullivan wrote: >>>=20 >>>> We will have to live with it. WhateverHat is not better. >>> I can't comment on that - the entire org runs *Hat, I've spent the = last >>> 3 years showing the benefits of *BSD and now I feel completely = betrayed >>> because there is no chance of them changing, "You see it's not an >>> Enterprise OS"... >>=20 >> FreeBSD is a toolkit, not a "product" (ok, it's a product if you look = for toolkit). It is an very good toolkit to build UNIX-like systems and = many enterprises use it. Some do wonders with it, some, disasters. As = with any good toolkit, there is an entire ecosystem for support built = around it. FreeBSD also works out of the box but we are clearly not = discussing this here. >>=20 >> I understand your effort and frustration -- everyone who has dealt = with BSD UNIX has come to face it -- the media was instructed to = praise/blame Linux (out of topic why) and the mainstream "me too" crowd = is embracing it easier.. When most of the people who come to interviews = answer "I know Windows or Linux" your management does not have much = choice. >> Back in their days of glory, Cisco had very interesting marketing = strategy: "Never compete with anyone head to head -- the other party can = always optimize for the bench case. Instead, work with the user to build = and list of their requirements... and at the end see your product is the = only one that matches". Helps :) >=20 > hi all, > sorry to barge in :-), but since I have been trying to upgrade my = /usr/local now for a few days,=20 > and counting, I tend to understand Michelle=92s frustration, I also = understand that managing a ports > distribution is not for the weak hearted.=20 >=20 > Here is my story: > before I updated the ports via portsnap, I made sure the tree was = clean, i.e., ran=20 > pkg check -Ba > and > portmaster -dvga > and all was ok. >=20 > upgraded ports, ran portmaster ports-mgmt/pkg, > and now, since that day I am running > portmaster -dvga > and hand fixing issues. >=20 > all this in a non production environment - learned from past = experiences. > btw, we have several hundred computers, most of them desktops running = Linux, but > all the servers run FreeBSD. >=20 > Basically, I dread the day I run portsnap fetch update Fairly recently, there was launched a "stable" ports branch. This is=20 updated quarterly, and seems akin to the quarterly releases of pkgsrc=20 in that the given branch receives only security updates after it is=20 created. It appears to be fairly low-key. I remember seeing an=20 announcement on several FreeBSD mailing lists about its initial=20 release, but haven't seen anything since (even though I believe it is=20 now in its second quarter, at least). My question is this: does anyone have experience of tracking ports via=20= these branches? Does it work well? I can see that it would be=20 advantageous to those wanting less frequent churn. I wonder, though,=20 whether it doesn't just postpone the headaches to a quarterly basis,=20 when the next branch is made. It would seem that all the churn would=20 come all at once. Some people recommend not going too long between=20 ports updates because there's an increasing probability something will=20= fail to update the longer you wait. Is a quarter just right in terms=20 of time? I don't believe the "stable" ports branches are completely like the=20 pkgsrc quarterly releases. As far as I know, the pkgsrc quarterly=20 releases are a chosen subset of the regular pkgsrc rolling release=20 version, whereas the "stable" ports branch is a snapshot of ports at a=20= given time. I don't know what measures are taken to ensure that one=20 version of the "stable" ports branch can upgrade to the next "stable"=20 ports branch. Is it left as an exercise for the reader to pore through=20= /usr/ports/UPDATING and work out what is needed to be fixed by hand? This is not intended to be a slight on the "stable" ports branches. I=20= just want to solicit feedback from people who have actually been using=20= it, to determine how successfully it works in practice. Cheers, Paul.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?358B9E99-5E02-47BA-9E30-045986150966>