Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2025 17:33:38 +0200 From: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> To: David Chisnall <theraven@FreeBSD.org> Cc: vermaden <vermaden@interia.pl>, Shawn Webb <shawn.webb@hardenedbsd.org>, "freebsd-pkgbase@freebsd.org" <freebsd-pkgbase@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-stable@freebsd.org" <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org" <freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-current@freebsd.org" <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, pete@nomadlogic.org, bapt@freebsd.org, bane@pmf.uns.ac.rs Subject: Re: PKGBASE Removes FreeBSD Base System Feature Message-ID: <9a03be4d-4621-445c-980d-e63c7f163e78@quip.cz> In-Reply-To: <DF25C123-E233-4EEF-86F2-AD536BA2F397@FreeBSD.org> References: <gblzvammhkzqxmwduyap@vpbk> <na7zou5skn2rcvyoigjgnnlzaomqsx23aj7dq3epq5ds65cu4y@ukgxp5zsj7j7> <fozdqxvxzylwxyvzfrmt@fobq> <a9e07520-eddd-4e55-abab-cf7ecd426c24@quip.cz> <DF25C123-E233-4EEF-86F2-AD536BA2F397@FreeBSD.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On 01/08/2025 16:22, David Chisnall wrote: > On 31 Jul 2025, at 02:57, Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> wrote: >> >> I would also like to separate it. Use one command to update (upgrade) >> 3rd party packages and another to update (upgrade) base packages. It >> is our workflow for the last 25+ years thus running one command to >> update both is really unexpected and unwanted. > > I disagree here. If you *want* to separate them, then you can: you can > specify the repository that you want to upgrade explicitly. But if you > do then you risk things like: > > - I’ve upgraded my base system, but not my ports-kmods things, so now > my GUI doesn’t start. > - I’ve upgraded ports, but the ports tree is built on a newer point > release and I need to upgrade to make some symbols exist. > - I’ve upgraded the base system and now some kmods from ports don’t work. > > All of these are things that users have complained about publicly in the > last year or so. > > I have avoided them by always doing `freebsd-update install && pkg > upgrade` and keeping that in my shell history[1] so I don’t accidentally > forget to upgrade both together. > > Given a choice between a thing that works for users, or something that > *can* work for users but comes with a bunch of footguns that they need > to avoid, I’d pick the former. > > David > > [1] I’ve noticed on fresh installs, the default shell no longer has > working persistent history, which is a *big* POLA violation, if people > want to complain about something. I see your point, but our workflow is much different. One command to upgrade base and packages at the same time is like "one to break it all" to me. I have seen broken "pkg upgrade" so many times... but it never breaks base and running ssh so I am still able to fix it somehow.. Running FreeBSD for more than 25 years on tens of machines (headless servers) and I never need to do upgrade of base and packages at the same time. I am not saying nobody need it. Yes it can be useful on upgrading desktops or other installations with kmods, but I think it still can be done in 2 separate steps to keep the base untouched if user wants it. Mainly when there is another step needed - etcupdate. Having base and packages upgraded and only then fixing conflicts with etcupdate seems very bad idea to me. Kind regards Miroslav Lachmanhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9a03be4d-4621-445c-980d-e63c7f163e78>