Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 22:03:27 +0200 From: Rainer Duffner <rainer@ultra-secure.de> To: Dave Hayes <dave@jetcafe.org> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Daniel Kalchev <daniel@digsys.bg> Subject: Re: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD ? Message-ID: <90425E82-5475-491F-AE88-00B0774F058D@ultra-secure.de> In-Reply-To: <201206061859.q56IxvLx045828@hugeraid.jetcafe.org> References: <CAOgwaMvsv3e1TxDauV038Pp7LRiYeH7oAODE%2Bw-pxHt9oGrXMA@mail.gmail.com> <201206020012.q520CEcf057568@hugeraid.jetcafe.org> <20120602004230.GA14487@in-addr.com> <201206040224.q542OBqk085897@hugeraid.jetcafe.org> <20120604043233.GB32597@lonesome.com> <201206040841.q548fVHa091169@hugeraid.jetcafe.org> <CADLo83-9jE1zAtdXrA78=K5AE7yR4UsMh=efeC5L4kXijaDFaQ@mail.gmail.com> <201206041841.q54IfUow001060@hugeraid.jetcafe.org> <20120604191343.GF10783@isuckatdomains.isuckatdomains.net> <201206041932.q54JWONA001600@hugeraid.jetcafe.org> <4FCDA15C.2000700@digsys.bg> <201206061859.q56IxvLx045828@hugeraid.jetcafe.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Am 06.06.2012 um 20:59 schrieb Dave Hayes: >=20 >=20 > I believe this is the first time I've seen more documentation labeled = as > "extraneous". :) I had thought to suggest an implementation by having = a > simple pkg-option-desr file which describes the options and = implications > in each port. Are you suggesting that such a file would be unwelcome?=20= >=20 No, but take a look at the nginx port, which (I'm too lazy to count) has = gained a couple of dozens of options over the years. It's a bit of an extreme example, I know - but nevertheless. I've enabled some that I know what they do and some where I think I know = what they do. Some are default on, so I left them on. The rest I disabled if I knew I wouldn't ever need them. Documenting all of them would probably be a huge endeavor - and I'm glad = that Sergey keeps the ports updated super-fast and chases down all the = updates of 3rd-party patches (which often have little more than the = source itself as documentation) etc. Asking him to do even more work - I wouldn't dare to do that ;-) It's really the person who is running make config who has to read up on = all the options and decide if (s)he needs them. Sometimes, options only make sense in context of the selection of = options of other ports and it thus may no be easily explainable in one = line. I don't maintain any ports, I just build about 600 of them in our = private tinderbox. IMO, you can't really maintain more than a couple of FreeBSD-servers = professionally without some sort of central package-building. The earlier people realize this, the less pain they will have to suffer. = In practice, you realize it 50 or 100 servers too late... The work that goes into the ports-tree is tremendous and once you start = running your own tinderbox, maintain some 3rd-party patches yourself and = just generally dig deeper into this stuff you begin to realize just how = difficult this is.=20 What I do (or try to do) on my tinderbox is to take a "frozen" = ports-tree towards a release and build packages from it (trying to = minimize the number of unique builds per portstree) After the tree is open again, I try to get the stuff that interests me, = the security-patches (e.g. the recent php bug) or other stuff that is = useful for us as an update directly from CVS for the 600 or so ports = that we actually use. Of course, this only works until something in the ports-framework = changes significantly (like that options-ng thing recently) and I either = have to update the whole ports-tree or just wait till the next = pre-release freeze. I found that currently the fastest way to update my packages on a server = is to pkg_delete -fa and then pkg_add the stuff back that I need (more = or less the same packages everywhere, anyway).=20 Portupgrade is far too slow to be of any practical use (and more than a = handful of package-management-tools in the ports-mgnt category isn't = really helpful, either - who has the time to test them all?) I hope that pkgng will solve most of these problems and enable me to = update my ports-tree more often. Unfortunately, by then some of the FreeBSD-servers will have moved into = our private cloud (using Joyent's private cloud, which, incidentally = uses NetBSD's pkgsrc - we will have to see how that works out longtime) Personally, I don't need more frequent FreeBSD-releases but two or maybe = three ports-tree freezes per year would be good. So, FreeBSD 9.0-RELEASE, FreeBSD 9.0-U1, FreeBSD 9.0U2 would be cool ;-) Would that be a lot of additional work?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?90425E82-5475-491F-AE88-00B0774F058D>