Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 15:55:30 +0200 From: Rainer Duffner <rainer@ultra-secure.de> To: Paul Mather <paul@gromit.dlib.vt.edu> 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: <20140903155530.464a7649@suse3.ewadmin.local> In-Reply-To: <358B9E99-5E02-47BA-9E30-045986150966@gromit.dlib.vt.edu> 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> <358B9E99-5E02-47BA-9E30-045986150966@gromit.dlib.vt.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Am Wed, 3 Sep 2014 09:01:02 -0400 schrieb Paul Mather <paul@gromit.dlib.vt.edu>: > Fairly recently, there was launched a "stable" ports branch. This is > updated quarterly, and seems akin to the quarterly releases of pkgsrc > in that the given branch receives only security updates after it is > created. It appears to be fairly low-key. I remember seeing an > announcement on several FreeBSD mailing lists about its initial > release, but haven't seen anything since (even though I believe it is > now in its second quarter, at least). It's actually already in its 3rd quarter. > My question is this: does anyone have experience of tracking ports > via these branches? Does it work well? So far, it works well - for me. But of course I build all my packages myself. About 1200 or so, some of them I just use myself. Occasionally, when a port does not build (dovecot2 in Q2, IIRC), I need to take stuff from the "current" ports-tree. But it's not such a big deal. Q3 built everything right out of the box, though. Sometimes, when the installed pkg is too old, I have to fetch the newest pkg-package from my build, unpack pkg and the libpkg library and use that to upgrade the tree. I've got to see how the 1.2 -> 1.3 transition goes. I hope we can reach a state soon, where pkg is completely in the base-system and not changed much (or at all) over releases - or the database-format doesn't change much. Because I assume, a package-downgrade that also involves a downgrade of pkg itself is currently almost impossible. As for the subject of this discussion: I don't upgraded all my machines every quarter (yet). I've also stopped building for i386 a long time ago - simply because we haven't bought a non-AMD64 server for as long as I can remember being at my current employer... I've got builds for 8 9 and 10, sometimes with different "flavors", but I try to minimze variety (FreeBSD 10 only with MariaDB55, PHP55 etc. - no PHP55, no MariaDB55 to earlier releases - some stuff like perl, ruby is all the same on every major release until it's no longer in the ports-tree - then I need to lift it everywhere). I can see that you can't just upgrade any machine to the latest and greatest - I cannot do that either. But at the same time, the customer cannot expect to have the latest and greatest software on a five year old OS. Are there really people who need to maintain current ports with pkg_* tools on older FreeBSD-releases (that aren't supported by the ports-tree anymore, sometimes for ages)? That's going to be tough... All my machines with pkg_ still work well (sort of) - I just can't touch them. But almost all machines where this is the case are usually very old and can't be touched anyway. I can imagine that if you have a very large infrastructure and tooling tuned to use pkg_* it is very frustrating to dump all of this into the garbage-bin and start from scratch - but the writing of this has been on the wall for some time. Maybe Solaris or RedHat would be better platforms for those negatively affected by this - they have very stable APIs that are supported for a very long time. But porting non-mainstream 3rd-party software to these OSs might be challenging, too, after a couple of years. 3rd-party software moves on, too.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140903155530.464a7649>