RE: Still having trouble with package upgrades
Da= vid, Sorry for top posting - my 'phone makes it difficult. Do= we really have to have this debate again? You made the same points = a short while ago, and there was a long on-list debate about the strengths = and shortfalls of the existing ports and packages system. I don't se= e what value is added by having that debate again? I have certainly = been able to do binary package updates between releases in the past, so I c= an't agree that it doesn't work at all. Be that as it may, if you ca= n't or won't contribute programming time, money, or server resources to cre= ate the kind of package system you're talking about I don't see how it help= s to continually harangue the user community about your wish to make FreeBS= D work like Debian. Regards, -- Peter Harrison From:= David Jackson Sent: Wednesday, 7 March 2012 16:29 To:= /b freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Still having trouble w= ith package upgrades I still have yet to find a resolution to= the problems I have had with binary packages and upgrades on FreeBSD= . Binary upgrading is broken with every tool I have tried. = There is no real reason why FreeBSD should not provide a facility fo r users to be able to binary upgrade to the most recent version of al= l packages with a simple upgrade command. One faulty arg= ument I heard was that it is often not a good idea to upgrade to new = software release. The whole purpose of having a release cycle for pro= grams is to provide stable, tested releases for the public to install that will will work properly, and improve upon and fix problems with older= releases. This is why mainline release are differentiated from betas and the CVS downloads which are experimental. So you really do want = the most recent release, especially for corrections to any security p= roblem. Making upgrades more difficult actually makes the system more= insecure by exposing people for a long time to security problems tha= t were fixed in software but making it difficult for people to upgrad= e. As for the security issues of downloading binary pac= kages. The fact is source packages are not safer than binary packages= , more on that in a bit. I am astonished that people here would not r= ealise the obvious, having safe binary installs is do-able from mirro= r sites, just have the package management software download MD5s from= many mirror sites, compare them and test the downloaded package, is = they are off, then the package will not be installed the user will be= prompted to allow a notification of the problem to be sent to the Fr= eeBSD administrators. The fact is, binary releases are no more danger= ous than source releases, someone could just as easily insert bad cod= e in a source code package on a mirror, you need automated MD5 checki= ng anyway, for both binary or source upgrades. So the idea that sourc= e upgrades are safer is false, just dead wrong. As for compile= options, the solution is simple, compile in all feature options and = the most commonly used settings into the binary packages, for the sta= ndard i386 CPU. If people want customisations then they can build the= software for themselves. A good software philosophy is to all= ow software to work out of the box with as little configuration as po= ssible, but allow everything to be configured by the user if they wan= t, by shipping software with reasonable defaults which can be overrid= den by the user. Make simple things easy and complicated things doabl= e. In GUI, by default, complexity can be hidden from users, but if pe= ople want fine grain control, they should be free to use advanced scr= eens of the GUI to get complex, fine grained control. In GUI design, = more commonly used settings can be provided more upfront while advanc= ed features for use by experts can be placed deeper in advanced or ex= pert screens oft the GUI. Everything should be able to be configured or = braccomplished by both GUI and CLI and API. A good user frien= dly model for a useable OS is to allow for binary packages of the ent= ire system to be upgraded with a single upgrade command. It should wo= rk out of the box without hassle. Keeping software up to date to rece= nt releases is good practice, remember what I said about the purpose of = brsoftware releases. make it easy. why dont the freebsd admin= istrators just have a build machine that automatically compiles the s= oftware and makes them available as the ports are updated. = brThe user should be able to keep their system up to date without doing a= ny system wide all at once OS-release upgrades at all. There is no re ason why kernel
Still having trouble with package upgrades
I still have yet to find a resolution to the problems I have had with binary packages and upgrades on FreeBSD. Binary upgrading is broken with every tool I have tried. There is no real reason why FreeBSD should not provide a facility for users to be able to binary upgrade to the most recent version of all packages with a simple upgrade command. One faulty argument I heard was that it is often not a good idea to upgrade to new software release. The whole purpose of having a release cycle for programs is to provide stable, tested releases for the public to install that will will work properly, and improve upon and fix problems with older releases. This is why mainline release are differentiated from betas and the CVS downloads which are experimental. So you really do want the most recent release, especially for corrections to any security problem. Making upgrades more difficult actually makes the system more insecure by exposing people for a long time to security problems that were fixed in software but making it difficult for people to upgrade. As for the security issues of downloading binary packages. The fact is source packages are not safer than binary packages, more on that in a bit. I am astonished that people here would not realise the obvious, having safe binary installs is do-able from mirror sites, just have the package management software download MD5s from many mirror sites, compare them and test the downloaded package, is they are off, then the package will not be installed the user will be prompted to allow a notification of the problem to be sent to the FreeBSD administrators. The fact is, binary releases are no more dangerous than source releases, someone could just as easily insert bad code in a source code package on a mirror, you need automated MD5 checking anyway, for both binary or source upgrades. So the idea that source upgrades are safer is false, just dead wrong. As for compile options, the solution is simple, compile in all feature options and the most commonly used settings into the binary packages, for the standard i386 CPU. If people want customisations then they can build the software for themselves. A good software philosophy is to allow software to work out of the box with as little configuration as possible, but allow everything to be configured by the user if they want, by shipping software with reasonable defaults which can be overridden by the user. Make simple things easy and complicated things doable. In GUI, by default, complexity can be hidden from users, but if people want fine grain control, they should be free to use advanced screens of the GUI to get complex, fine grained control. In GUI design, more commonly used settings can be provided more upfront while advanced features for use by experts can be placed deeper in advanced or expert screens oft the GUI. Everything should be able to be configured or accomplished by both GUI and CLI and API. A good user friendly model for a useable OS is to allow for binary packages of the entire system to be upgraded with a single upgrade command. It should work out of the box without hassle. Keeping software up to date to recent releases is good practice, remember what I said about the purpose of software releases. make it easy. why dont the freebsd administrators just have a build machine that automatically compiles the software and makes them available as the ports are updated. The user should be able to keep their system up to date without doing any system wide all at once OS-release upgrades at all. There is no reason why kernel and userland programs have to be upgraded at the same time. Especially considering its a good design practice for kernel to provide backward compatability. Instead the system would be piecemeal updated over time, including the kernel, in a piecemeal fashion. The need for system wide OS distribution version numbers like FreeBSD 9.0 is becoming obsolete. Versions are still very valuable for the kernel, but for collections of the entire system software, it has become much less relevant. This was from an age when people would receive a Tape or CD in the mail and update everything all at once, now software can be upgraded in a piecemeal way over time with automatic updates. The CD-based upgrade and all at once system wide upgrades actually for reasons are inferior, in that it meant often months would go by before a software program was updated, delying the application of vital security fixes. Before the age of the internet and the hacker, that may have been acceptable. Its not anymore. With Firefox and Flash for instance, security fixes are made sometimes weekly, with an system wide at once upgrade model, it could be a very long time between upgrades of such software between releases of the OS software distribution CD. The idea of waiting on a FreeBSD kernel release to upgrade firefox is absurd, and the idea that firefox must be upgraded during a kernel upgrade is also absurd. The piecemeal
Re: Still having trouble with package upgrades
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:50 AM, tho...@sanbe-farma.com wrote: Hmm what is the problem ? Is there a log or something that you can share ? Usually portsnap, freebsd-update, pkg_add -r or portupgrade that do binary update should be enough Ive tried them all. I will work on getting some logs to post here shortly Regards Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone from Sinyal Bagus XL, Nyambung Teruuusss...! -Original Message- From: David Jackson djackson...@gmail.com Sender: owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 11:28:47 To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Still having trouble with package upgrades I still have yet to find a resolution to the problems I have had with binary packages and upgrades on FreeBSD. Binary upgrading is broken with every tool I have tried. There is no real reason why FreeBSD should not provide a facility for users to be able to binary upgrade to the most recent version of all packages with a simple upgrade command. One faulty argument I heard was that it is often not a good idea to upgrade to new software release. The whole purpose of having a release cycle for programs is to provide stable, tested releases for the public to install that will will work properly, and improve upon and fix problems with older releases. This is why mainline release are differentiated from betas and the CVS downloads which are experimental. So you really do want the most recent release, especially for corrections to any security problem. Making upgrades more difficult actually makes the system more insecure by exposing people for a long time to security problems that were fixed in software but making it difficult for people to upgrade. As for the security issues of downloading binary packages. The fact is source packages are not safer than binary packages, more on that in a bit. I am astonished that people here would not realise the obvious, having safe binary installs is do-able from mirror sites, just have the package management software download MD5s from many mirror sites, compare them and test the downloaded package, is they are off, then the package will not be installed the user will be prompted to allow a notification of the problem to be sent to the FreeBSD administrators. The fact is, binary releases are no more dangerous than source releases, someone could just as easily insert bad code in a source code package on a mirror, you need automated MD5 checking anyway, for both binary or source upgrades. So the idea that source upgrades are safer is false, just dead wrong. As for compile options, the solution is simple, compile in all feature options and the most commonly used settings into the binary packages, for the standard i386 CPU. If people want customisations then they can build the software for themselves. A good software philosophy is to allow software to work out of the box with as little configuration as possible, but allow everything to be configured by the user if they want, by shipping software with reasonable defaults which can be overridden by the user. Make simple things easy and complicated things doable. In GUI, by default, complexity can be hidden from users, but if people want fine grain control, they should be free to use advanced screens of the GUI to get complex, fine grained control. In GUI design, more commonly used settings can be provided more upfront while advanced features for use by experts can be placed deeper in advanced or expert screens oft the GUI. Everything should be able to be configured or accomplished by both GUI and CLI and API. A good user friendly model for a useable OS is to allow for binary packages of the entire system to be upgraded with a single upgrade command. It should work out of the box without hassle. Keeping software up to date to recent releases is good practice, remember what I said about the purpose of software releases. make it easy. why dont the freebsd administrators just have a build machine that automatically compiles the software and makes them available as the ports are updated. The user should be able to keep their system up to date without doing any system wide all at once OS-release upgrades at all. There is no reason why kernel and userland programs have to be upgraded at the same time. Especially considering its a good design practice for kernel to provide backward compatability. Instead the system would be piecemeal updated over time, including the kernel, in a piecemeal fashion. The need for system wide OS distribution version numbers like FreeBSD 9.0 is becoming obsolete. Versions are still very valuable for the kernel, but for collections of the entire system software, it has become much less relevant. This was from an age when people would receive a Tape or CD in the mail and update everything all at once, now software can be upgraded in a piecemeal way over time with automatic updates. The CD-based upgrade
Re: Still having trouble with package upgrades
David, allow me to add a few thoughts: On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 11:28:47 -0500, David Jackson wrote: As for compile options, the solution is simple, compile in all feature options and the most commonly used settings into the binary packages, for the standard i386 CPU. I think this can develop into a major problem in certain countries where listening to MP3 is illegal. :-) However, when considerations of law enter the field, the problem becomes obvious: There are situations, depending on local national law or software licnsing, when it is not possible to include certain functionality by default. You know, I'd _love_ to pkg_add -r mplayer to get mplayer and mencoder with _all_ the codecs so it can play everything. Sadly, that is not the default situation. You can also encounter similar barriers with Linux when you install a distribution, and many things work out of the box, but as soon as you cross a certain line (i. e. you want to access specific media formats), you need to add something to your installation. That shouldn't be neccessary, and it is not neccessary from a technical point of view, but legal objections seem to demand it it's artificially made impossible... If people want customisations then they can build the software for themselves. That's what they'll do anyway. :-) Especially on systems low on resources, compiling from source is _the_ way to squeeze every required (!) bit of performance out of code. Even if compiling may require some time (due to optimization flags), the result can be really usable. When a new kernel is released, there is no reason to reinstall all of the packages on the system at the same time. Since the kernel and userland packages have different development cycles, there is no reason why there has to be synchronization of the upgrading. It sometimes is neccessary, for example if kernel interfaces have changed. There is some means of compatibility provided by the compat_ ports. But if you start upgrading things, libraries can break, and the system may become unstable (in terms of not being able of running certain programs anymore). Just see how kernel and world are out of sync errors can even cause the system to stop booting. Degrading the inner workings of the OS to just another package can cause trouble. Simple updates as they are often performed on Linux systems can render the whole installation totally unusable because something minor went wrong. :-) An OS that requires a user to reinstall everything just to upgrade the kernel is not user friendly. Why do consider a user being supposed to mess with kernels? This question can show that I'm already too old: Programs are for users, kernels are for sysadmins. Sysadmins do stuff properly, even if they shoot their foot in order to learn an important lesson. :-) As I said before: Updating the kernel _may_ cause many dependency programs (the userland and often the installed 3rd party applications) to become target of updating in order to keep their functionality. New kernel interfaces, changes in ABI or API, new libraries, as well as obsoleted things may be a valid (!) reason. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Still having trouble with package upgrades
Hmm what is the problem ? Is there a log or something that you can share ? Usually portsnap, freebsd-update, pkg_add -r or portupgrade that do binary update should be enough Regards Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone from Sinyal Bagus XL, Nyambung Teruuusss...! -Original Message- From: David Jackson djackson...@gmail.com Sender: owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 11:28:47 To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Still having trouble with package upgrades I still have yet to find a resolution to the problems I have had with binary packages and upgrades on FreeBSD. Binary upgrading is broken with every tool I have tried. There is no real reason why FreeBSD should not provide a facility for users to be able to binary upgrade to the most recent version of all packages with a simple upgrade command. One faulty argument I heard was that it is often not a good idea to upgrade to new software release. The whole purpose of having a release cycle for programs is to provide stable, tested releases for the public to install that will will work properly, and improve upon and fix problems with older releases. This is why mainline release are differentiated from betas and the CVS downloads which are experimental. So you really do want the most recent release, especially for corrections to any security problem. Making upgrades more difficult actually makes the system more insecure by exposing people for a long time to security problems that were fixed in software but making it difficult for people to upgrade. As for the security issues of downloading binary packages. The fact is source packages are not safer than binary packages, more on that in a bit. I am astonished that people here would not realise the obvious, having safe binary installs is do-able from mirror sites, just have the package management software download MD5s from many mirror sites, compare them and test the downloaded package, is they are off, then the package will not be installed the user will be prompted to allow a notification of the problem to be sent to the FreeBSD administrators. The fact is, binary releases are no more dangerous than source releases, someone could just as easily insert bad code in a source code package on a mirror, you need automated MD5 checking anyway, for both binary or source upgrades. So the idea that source upgrades are safer is false, just dead wrong. As for compile options, the solution is simple, compile in all feature options and the most commonly used settings into the binary packages, for the standard i386 CPU. If people want customisations then they can build the software for themselves. A good software philosophy is to allow software to work out of the box with as little configuration as possible, but allow everything to be configured by the user if they want, by shipping software with reasonable defaults which can be overridden by the user. Make simple things easy and complicated things doable. In GUI, by default, complexity can be hidden from users, but if people want fine grain control, they should be free to use advanced screens of the GUI to get complex, fine grained control. In GUI design, more commonly used settings can be provided more upfront while advanced features for use by experts can be placed deeper in advanced or expert screens oft the GUI. Everything should be able to be configured or accomplished by both GUI and CLI and API. A good user friendly model for a useable OS is to allow for binary packages of the entire system to be upgraded with a single upgrade command. It should work out of the box without hassle. Keeping software up to date to recent releases is good practice, remember what I said about the purpose of software releases. make it easy. why dont the freebsd administrators just have a build machine that automatically compiles the software and makes them available as the ports are updated. The user should be able to keep their system up to date without doing any system wide all at once OS-release upgrades at all. There is no reason why kernel and userland programs have to be upgraded at the same time. Especially considering its a good design practice for kernel to provide backward compatability. Instead the system would be piecemeal updated over time, including the kernel, in a piecemeal fashion. The need for system wide OS distribution version numbers like FreeBSD 9.0 is becoming obsolete. Versions are still very valuable for the kernel, but for collections of the entire system software, it has become much less relevant. This was from an age when people would receive a Tape or CD in the mail and update everything all at once, now software can be upgraded in a piecemeal way over time with automatic updates. The CD-based upgrade and all at once system wide upgrades actually for reasons are inferior, in that it meant often months would go by before a software program was updated, delying the application of vital security fixes. Before
Re: Still having trouble with package upgrades
Many of your issues are non-issues, as your suggestions were implemented in some form long ago. For example, updated applications are compiled and available online. You can use pkg_add -r to install the newest binary package that is available, or you can update your an installed application by updating the ports and using portupgrade, which has options to control whether you compile updates from source or install binary packages. pkg-add -r does not seem to be an upgrade all packages sort of feature I am looking for. I have tried pkg-upgrade, portmaster, and portupgrade, all of these do not work. I am working on getting the logs ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Still having trouble with package upgrades
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 10:28 AM, David Jackson djackson...@gmail.com wrote: I still have yet to find a resolution to the problems I have had with binary packages and upgrades on FreeBSD. Binary upgrading is broken with every tool I have tried. There is no real reason why FreeBSD should not provide a facility for users to be able to binary upgrade to the most recent version of all packages with a simple upgrade command. One faulty argument I heard was that it is often not a good idea to upgrade to new software release. The whole purpose of having a release cycle for programs is to provide stable, tested releases for the public to install that will will work properly, and improve upon and fix problems with older releases. This is why mainline release are differentiated from betas and the CVS downloads which are experimental. So you really do want the most recent release, especially for corrections to any security problem. Making upgrades more difficult actually makes the system more insecure by exposing people for a long time to security problems that were fixed in software but making it difficult for people to upgrade. As for the security issues of downloading binary packages. The fact is source packages are not safer than binary packages, more on that in a bit. I am astonished that people here would not realise the obvious, having safe binary installs is do-able from mirror sites, just have the package management software download MD5s from many mirror sites, compare them and test the downloaded package, is they are off, then the package will not be installed the user will be prompted to allow a notification of the problem to be sent to the FreeBSD administrators. The fact is, binary releases are no more dangerous than source releases, someone could just as easily insert bad code in a source code package on a mirror, you need automated MD5 checking anyway, for both binary or source upgrades. So the idea that source upgrades are safer is false, just dead wrong. As for compile options, the solution is simple, compile in all feature options and the most commonly used settings into the binary packages, for the standard i386 CPU. If people want customisations then they can build the software for themselves. A good software philosophy is to allow software to work out of the box with as little configuration as possible, but allow everything to be configured by the user if they want, by shipping software with reasonable defaults which can be overridden by the user. Make simple things easy and complicated things doable. In GUI, by default, complexity can be hidden from users, but if people want fine grain control, they should be free to use advanced screens of the GUI to get complex, fine grained control. In GUI design, more commonly used settings can be provided more upfront while advanced features for use by experts can be placed deeper in advanced or expert screens oft the GUI. Everything should be able to be configured or accomplished by both GUI and CLI and API. A good user friendly model for a useable OS is to allow for binary packages of the entire system to be upgraded with a single upgrade command. It should work out of the box without hassle. Keeping software up to date to recent releases is good practice, remember what I said about the purpose of software releases. make it easy. why dont the freebsd administrators just have a build machine that automatically compiles the software and makes them available as the ports are updated. The user should be able to keep their system up to date without doing any system wide all at once OS-release upgrades at all. There is no reason why kernel and userland programs have to be upgraded at the same time. Especially considering its a good design practice for kernel to provide backward compatability. Instead the system would be piecemeal updated over time, including the kernel, in a piecemeal fashion. The need for system wide OS distribution version numbers like FreeBSD 9.0 is becoming obsolete. Versions are still very valuable for the kernel, but for collections of the entire system software, it has become much less relevant. This was from an age when people would receive a Tape or CD in the mail and update everything all at once, now software can be upgraded in a piecemeal way over time with automatic updates. The CD-based upgrade and all at once system wide upgrades actually for reasons are inferior, in that it meant often months would go by before a software program was updated, delying the application of vital security fixes. Before the age of the internet and the hacker, that may have been acceptable. Its not anymore. With Firefox and Flash for instance, security fixes are made sometimes weekly, with an system wide at once upgrade model, it could be a very long time between upgrades of such software between releases of the OS software distribution CD. The idea of waiting on a
Re: Still having trouble with package upgrades
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Polytropon free...@edvax.de wrote: David, allow me to add a few thoughts: On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 11:28:47 -0500, David Jackson wrote: As for compile options, the solution is simple, compile in all feature options and the most commonly used settings into the binary packages, for the standard i386 CPU. I think this can develop into a major problem in certain countries where listening to MP3 is illegal. :-) You are talking about the codec. What Ubuntu seems to do is distribute these codecs as a seperate nonfree addon package which are then loaded by applications at run time. You see, options do not necessarily have to be compiled into programs, they can be loaded at libraries and then loaded by programs at run time if they are available. This is also a rare circumstance, and there are workaround as above. If people want customisations then they can build the software for themselves. That's what they'll do anyway. :-) No, usually they do not. Few people except for hard core geeks want to mess around with compile options. most will use runtime configuration through a GUI which is faster. Especially on systems low on resources, compiling from source is _the_ way to squeeze every required (!) bit of performance out of code. Even if compiling may require some time (due to optimization flags), the result can be really usable. When a new kernel is released, there is no reason to reinstall all of the packages on the system at the same time. Since the kernel and userland packages have different development cycles, there is no reason why there has to be synchronization of the upgrading. It sometimes is neccessary, for example if kernel interfaces have changed. There is some means of compatibility provided by the compat_ ports. But if you start upgrading things, libraries can break, and the system may become unstable (in terms of not being able of running certain programs anymore). Just see how kernel and world are out of sync errors can even cause the system to stop booting. Degrading the inner workings of the OS to just another package can cause trouble. Simple updates as they are often performed on Linux systems can render the whole installation totally unusable because something minor went wrong. :-) A well designed system will provide backwards compatability through various strategies and this does not necessarily need to affect internal software design as the backwards compatability can also be provided by compatability layers and glue code. Programs communicate with the kernel via interrupts, pushing arguments for the system call onto the stack. The format of this closely matches the source code API. The API is used with the system calling convention. These are mostly mature and do not need to change much. Considering it also a bad practice to create an incompatable system API, there is little reason to change the system call interface. The system call interface has little impact on internal kernel except where adding a new feature can require additional kernel code. Most system calls are mature and do not need to change much. If a system call is needed to provide new functionality, a new system call can be added, which can if needed duplicate the functionality of an older system call. There is also ELF and binary code linking and calling conventions. This can also be maintained to be backwards compatability, if necessary through the use of compatability layers and glue in this process. Another strategy that is unlikely to be needed, since there really is not much reason to make non backwards compatable changes to the current system call set, and is only now used for Linux binary compatability is to mark a binary for a certain system call interface, that system call interface can be backed by glue code to the the main kernel interfaces. Other means of communicating with the kernel which are possible include the /proc interface and as as well UNIX domain sockets. Again if the format of these needs to changed in a non backwards compatable way, a new file or socket can be created at a new location for the new version, the old file or socket location would provide the old interface backed by glue code to the new interface. It is possible to provide backwards compatability through compatability layers and glue code like this, without in anyway impacting the internal design of a kernel or other software system. An OS that requires a user to reinstall everything just to upgrade the kernel is not user friendly. Why do consider a user being supposed to mess with kernels? This question can show that I'm already too old: Programs are for users, kernels are for sysadmins. Sysadmins do stuff properly, even if they shoot their foot in order to learn an important lesson. :-) Users have to upgrade the kernel, with a well designed OS this is a process that does not require any sort of problems for the user. Since good
Re: Still having trouble with package upgrades
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 12:42 PM, David Jackson djackson...@gmail.comwrote: Especially on systems low on resources, compiling from source is _the_ way to squeeze every required (!) bit of performance out of code. Even if compiling may require some time (due to optimization flags), the result can be really usable. Again, if you want to customise your software and build it, fine, I am fully supportive of this flexibility and options being available. For many people however the extra effort to do all of this is just not worth it to save a little RAM by not loading library X. I am saying that all features included up to date prebuilt binaries should be avalable, NOT that this should be the only option. I fully support customized port build facility for those that want it. For people who just want a fully functional everything included binary package, then they should be able to use FreeBSDs binary packages. That will in no way affect your ability to compile your ports and i fully suppoert your right to conmpile your ports and configure them so things that you dont need are not compiled in. So it seems like a happy compromise here. You will get what you need and us newbies and other users who really dont want the extra trouble of compiling will get our binaries. Everyone gets what they want and is happy, it seems. I am not dissing or criticising the process of compiling your own ports, if thats what you want, fine, please do. All I am asking for is to be able to use binaries for those who want the binaries and dont want to compile their own stuff. if people dont want to use precompiled stuff, it wont be forced on them, they just compile their own stuff using the ports. I am fine with users having this choice. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Still having trouble with package upgrades
I ran into problems with pkg-upgrade when I upgraded from 8.2p6-9.0-RELEASE, and part of the problem ended up being a tool pkg_upgrade used (uma). That was the reason portupgrade didn't work as well. I ended up hacking the support tool and pkg_upgrade to do what I needed, but they are both definitely broken. iirc, one of the issues with uma was it's url generation. It would generate urls like 9-RELEASE instead of 9.0-RELEASE, the former being the format for 9-STABLE and the later (which I needed) was for an upgrade for a release. Sadly, I've forgotten the other issues, but I remember making about 3 hacks to the tools to get it working. Rob On 3/7/12 11:05 AM, David Jackson wrote: Many of your issues are non-issues, as your suggestions were implemented in some form long ago. For example, updated applications are compiled and available online. You can use pkg_add -r to install the newest binary package that is available, or you can update your an installed application by updating the ports and using portupgrade, which has options to control whether you compile updates from source or install binary packages. pkg-add -r does not seem to be an upgrade all packages sort of feature I am looking for. I have tried pkg-upgrade, portmaster, and portupgrade, all of these do not work. I am working on getting the logs ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Still having trouble with package upgrades
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Rob li...@midsummerdream.org wrote: I ran into problems with pkg-upgrade when I upgraded from 8.2p6-9.0-RELEASE, and part of the problem ended up being a tool pkg_upgrade used (uma). That was the reason portupgrade didn't work as well. I ended up hacking the support tool and pkg_upgrade to do what I needed, but they are both definitely broken. iirc, one of the issues with uma was it's url generation. It would generate urls like 9-RELEASE instead of 9.0-RELEASE, the former being the format for 9-STABLE and the later (which I needed) was for an upgrade for a release. Sadly, I've forgotten the other issues, but I remember making about 3 hacks to the tools to get it working. Well, thank you for posting. At least its just not me that seen these problems. For me, binary package updates are completely broken. I wonder how this severe and glaring problem got back FreeBSD engineers. It is such an annoying problem. Why cant they just make things work for people who want binary packages? As it is now, FreeBSD is totally unuseable to me. Rob On 3/7/12 11:05 AM, David Jackson wrote: Many of your issues are non-issues, as your suggestions were implemented in some form long ago. For example, updated applications are compiled and available online. You can use pkg_add -r to install the newest binary package that is available, or you can update your an installed application by updating the ports and using portupgrade, which has options to control whether you compile updates from source or install binary packages. pkg-add -r does not seem to be an upgrade all packages sort of feature I am looking for. I have tried pkg-upgrade, portmaster, and portupgrade, all of these do not work. I am working on getting the logs __**_ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/**mailman/listinfo/freebsd-**questionshttp://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-** unsubscr...@freebsd.org freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org __**_ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/**mailman/listinfo/freebsd-**questionshttp://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-** unsubscr...@freebsd.org freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Still having trouble with package upgrades
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:42 AM, David Jackson djackson...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Polytropon free...@edvax.de wrote: David, allow me to add a few thoughts: On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 11:28:47 -0500, David Jackson wrote: As for compile options, the solution is simple, compile in all feature options and the most commonly used settings into the binary packages, for the standard i386 CPU. I think this can develop into a major problem in certain countries where listening to MP3 is illegal. :-) You are talking about the codec. What Ubuntu seems to do is distribute these codecs as a seperate nonfree addon package which are then loaded by applications at run time. You see, options do not necessarily have to be compiled into programs, they can be loaded at libraries and then loaded by programs at run time if they are available. This is also a rare circumstance, and there are workaround as above. If people want customisations then they can build the software for themselves. That's what they'll do anyway. :-) No, usually they do not. Few people except for hard core geeks want to mess around with compile options. most will use runtime configuration through a GUI which is faster. This is irrelevant. FreeBSD has these options because most of its users are system administrators, developers or other types of geeks. Serving these needs is a major part of what FreeBSD does. That's why we have the long standing motto: FreeBSD - The power to serve. People who don't want these things, and insist on fool-proof upgrades will probably be happier running Windows, Mac OS X or some distribution of Linux. I've been around email lists long enough to know that every operating system (MS Windows, Linux, etc) occasionally has its update nightmares. My advice to you is: 1. Define your needs. 2. Choose the best software to meet your needs. 3. Choose the best operating system to run the software. 4. Choose the best hardware to run the operating system. If you've performed these steps out of order, you're unlikely to be happy. Andrew ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Still having trouble with package upgrades
This is irrelevant. FreeBSD has these options because most of its users are system administrators, developers or other types of geeks. Serving these needs is a major part of what FreeBSD does. That's why we have the long standing motto: FreeBSD - The power to serve. People who don't want these things, and insist on fool-proof upgrades will probably be happier running Windows, Mac OS X or some distribution of Linux. I've been around email lists long enough to know that every operating system (MS Windows, Linux, etc) occasionally has its update nightmares. My advice to you is: 1. Define your needs. 2. Choose the best software to meet your needs. 3. Choose the best operating system to run the software. 4. Choose the best hardware to run the operating system. If you've performed these steps out of order, you're unlikely to be happy. Andrew You have just now declared complete indifference to and alienated about 99% of the potential user base and their needs, those who could care less about compiling source and messing with compiler options. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Still having trouble with package upgrades
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 12:56 PM, David Jackson djackson...@gmail.com wrote: This is irrelevant. FreeBSD has these options because most of its users are system administrators, developers or other types of geeks. Serving these needs is a major part of what FreeBSD does. That's why we have the long standing motto: FreeBSD - The power to serve. People who don't want these things, and insist on fool-proof upgrades will probably be happier running Windows, Mac OS X or some distribution of Linux. I've been around email lists long enough to know that every operating system (MS Windows, Linux, etc) occasionally has its update nightmares. My advice to you is: 1. Define your needs. 2. Choose the best software to meet your needs. 3. Choose the best operating system to run the software. 4. Choose the best hardware to run the operating system. If you've performed these steps out of order, you're unlikely to be happy. Andrew You have just now declared complete indifference to and alienated about 99% of the potential user base and their needs, those who could care less about compiling source and messing with compiler options. I disagree. I have provided a process for you (or others) to make better decisions regarding the selection of software, operating systems and hardware. How could the developers of any operating system please everyone without watering down the excellent qualities of their creation? It is good that we have so many operating systems from which to choose. This allows operating systems to specialize in their strengths and for users to prioritize their needs. To the extent that you have discussed tools that are broken, I thank you; and I hope you have reported the bugs. I'm sure the tools will be fixed. Every open source operating system is created by developers who decide the direction the operating system will take. The operating system is backed by its own community. When you throw claims about most users not wanting to compile applications from source code, it is clear that you have not taken time to learn about the operating system, its history or the culture of the community. I encourage you to do so. Andrew ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Still having trouble with package upgrades
On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 12:57:46PM -0500, David Jackson wrote: So it seems like a happy compromise here. You will get what you need and us newbies and other users who really dont want the extra trouble of compiling will get our binaries. Everyone gets what they want and is happy, it seems. Yes, this sounds awfully good, except that I think it is much harder than you think. First, some options are mutually exclusive (i.e. ncurses vs slang)... so, maybe there are two, or three versions of the same package... and again, this sounds awfully good, except for the limited and volunteered time of a port maintainer. A happy compromise might be then to have binary packages of popular ports, which is how we have it now. Second, and I think this the most important reason, ports put the responsibility of the system on the user. They force you to make decisions on exactly what software is installed. You want the stability and freedom of FreeBSD without this responsibility, and this seems very hard to compromise (e.g., macosx and most linux distributions remove the responsibility by making all these choices for you). Is this newbie friendly? Probably not. Does it need to be? Well, it would be nice if more people use it, but if we remove the responsibility from the user, then it would not be FreeBSD, it would be something else. (Like Debian GNU/kFreeBSD, which sounds like what you are looking for.) -- Benjamin Tovar pgpMtUPAwu5Qi.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Still having trouble with package upgrades
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Andrew Gould andrewlylego...@gmail.comwrote: On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 12:56 PM, David Jackson djackson...@gmail.com wrote: This is irrelevant. FreeBSD has these options because most of its users are system administrators, developers or other types of geeks. Serving these needs is a major part of what FreeBSD does. That's why we have the long standing motto: FreeBSD - The power to serve. People who don't want these things, and insist on fool-proof upgrades will probably be happier running Windows, Mac OS X or some distribution of Linux. I've been around email lists long enough to know that every operating system (MS Windows, Linux, etc) occasionally has its update nightmares. My advice to you is: 1. Define your needs. 2. Choose the best software to meet your needs. 3. Choose the best operating system to run the software. 4. Choose the best hardware to run the operating system. If you've performed these steps out of order, you're unlikely to be happy. Andrew You have just now declared complete indifference to and alienated about 99% of the potential user base and their needs, those who could care less about compiling source and messing with compiler options. I disagree. I have provided a process for you (or others) to make better decisions regarding the selection of software, operating systems and hardware. How could the developers of any operating system please everyone without watering down the excellent qualities of their creation? It is good that we have so many operating systems from which to choose. This allows operating systems to specialize in their strengths and for users to prioritize their needs. To the extent that you have discussed tools that are broken, I thank you; and I hope you have reported the bugs. I'm sure the tools will be fixed. Every open source operating system is created by developers who decide the direction the operating system will take. The operating system is backed by its own community. When you throw claims about most users not wanting to compile applications from source code, it is clear that you have not taken time to learn about the operating system, its history or the culture of the community. I encourage you to do so. I think that your statement here is fundamentally flawed and wrong, because you have assumed that it is impossible for the OS to be able to be user friendly and geek friendly at the same time. This is wrong. In fact, I have outlined ways repeatedly that FreeBSD could provide an easy to use package system without compromising on the flexibility of ports in any way. The idea that the OS has to be either difficult to use or it has to be easy to use for novices is wrong. The OS can be both and I have written about ways that can be done, in fact, I can show how it can be done in every area. For instance, with better binary packages, those are simply built from ports using the best set of options. Those who want to compile for themselves will still be able to do so, just fine. So you have presented a position here that is simply not true. FreeBSD can be more user friendly and as the same time be flexible and friendly to experts such as yourself. its not an either or choice. Andrew ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Still having trouble with package upgrades
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Benjamin Tovar b...@robotoloco.com wrote: On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 12:57:46PM -0500, David Jackson wrote: So it seems like a happy compromise here. You will get what you need and us newbies and other users who really dont want the extra trouble of compiling will get our binaries. Everyone gets what they want and is happy, it seems. Yes, this sounds awfully good, except that I think it is much harder than you think. First, some options are mutually exclusive (i.e. ncurses vs slang)... so, maybe there are two, or three versions of the same package... and again, this sounds awfully good, except for the limited and volunteered time of a port maintainer. A happy compromise might be then to have binary packages of popular ports, which is how we have it now. Second, and I think this the most important reason, ports put the responsibility of the system on the user. They force you to make decisions on exactly what software is installed. You want the stability and freedom of FreeBSD without this responsibility, and this seems very hard to compromise (e.g., macosx and most linux distributions remove the responsibility by making all these choices for you). Is this newbie friendly? Probably not. Does it need to be? Well, it would be nice if more people use it, but if we remove the responsibility from the user, then it would not be FreeBSD, it would be something else. (Like Debian GNU/kFreeBSD, which sounds like what you are looking for.) -- Benjamin Tovar It is not newbie friendly. As a non-techie (CPA), however, I can tell you that it makes the user a better user; and **that** is a good thing. Some things are worth doing. :-) Andrew ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Still having trouble with package upgrades
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 3:20 PM, Andrew Gould andrewlylego...@gmail.comwrote: On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Benjamin Tovar b...@robotoloco.com wrote: On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 12:57:46PM -0500, David Jackson wrote: So it seems like a happy compromise here. You will get what you need and us newbies and other users who really dont want the extra trouble of compiling will get our binaries. Everyone gets what they want and is happy, it seems. Yes, this sounds awfully good, except that I think it is much harder than you think. First, some options are mutually exclusive (i.e. ncurses vs slang)... so, maybe there are two, or three versions of the same package... and again, this sounds awfully good, except for the limited and volunteered time of a port maintainer. A happy compromise might be then to have binary packages of popular ports, which is how we have it now. Second, and I think this the most important reason, ports put the responsibility of the system on the user. They force you to make decisions on exactly what software is installed. You want the stability and freedom of FreeBSD without this responsibility, and this seems very hard to compromise (e.g., macosx and most linux distributions remove the responsibility by making all these choices for you). Is this newbie friendly? Probably not. Does it need to be? Well, it would be nice if more people use it, but if we remove the responsibility from the user, then it would not be FreeBSD, it would be something else. (Like Debian GNU/kFreeBSD, which sounds like what you are looking for.) There is a port of apt (sysutils/apt) which you can install, and use to maintain your system via apt repositories. Not sure if anyone is maintaining an apt repository out in the world, for use with FreeBSD. -- Benjamin Tovar It is not newbie friendly. As a non-techie (CPA), however, I can tell you that it makes the user a better user; and **that** is a good thing. Some things are worth doing. :-) Andrew ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org -- regards, matt ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Still having trouble with package upgrades
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Benjamin Tovar b...@robotoloco.com wrote: On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 12:57:46PM -0500, David Jackson wrote: So it seems like a happy compromise here. You will get what you need and us newbies and other users who really dont want the extra trouble of compiling will get our binaries. Everyone gets what they want and is happy, it seems. Yes, this sounds awfully good, except that I think it is much harder than you think. First, some options are mutually exclusive (i.e. ncurses vs slang)... so, maybe there are two, or three versions of the same package... and again, this sounds awfully good, except for the limited and volunteered time of a port maintainer. A happy compromise might be then to have binary packages of popular ports, which is how we have it now. its really not that difficult and this is not an issue tht cannot be dealt with in the default binary package configuration. Both slang and ncurses could be installed and applications could be linked to one or the other. If ncurses is a better choice for instance, it couild be by default linked to that. So if a package has a choice oif being linked to ncurses or slang, then one package will be built, linked to ncurses or whatever is the generally best option and that build of the application will be the binary package. The point i would like to make is, for us to have good binary packages, we dont need to create a different package for every combination of compile time options, but instead compile with the best default set of options. If a user wants more flexibility than that, they are free to compile with ports. the availability of a binary package in no way whatsoever limits the availability of the option to compile a port if the user wants to do that. its not an either or thing. Where two options are mutually exclusive, the best option should be chosen. Where the two options are not mutually exclusive and add a feature or capability to the software, the option can be included. run time configuration settigns should be set to the most reasonable values. Second, and I think this the most important reason, ports put the responsibility of the system on the user. They force you to make decisions on exactly what software is installed. You want the stability and freedom of FreeBSD without this responsibility, and this seems very hard to compromise (e.g., macosx and most linux distributions remove the responsibility by making all these choices for you). Is this newbie friendly? Probably not. Does it need to be? Well, it would be nice if more people use it, but if we remove the responsibility from the user, then it would not be FreeBSD, it would be something else. (Like Debian GNU/kFreeBSD, which sounds like what you are looking for.) The fact is, again, allowing the user to not go into that kind of detail and not mess around with compile time options, does not prevent in any way you from doing so. the OS should be about freedom, Not YOU forcing your ideas about how the system should be used on everyone else. as I repeatedly said, you are free to configure your applications compile to your hearts content, i support you having that freedom.You are the one in fact who has been trying to take away my freedom of not having to mess around with compile options if I dont want to. -- just let users decide if they want to compile port or use pre compiled package for themselves Benjamin Tovar ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Still having trouble with package upgrades
On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 11:28:47 -0500 David Jackson wrote: One faulty argument I heard was that it is often not a good idea to upgrade to new software release. This is an argument that you appear to have completely misunderstood. The point of suggesting that you use release package is that it's a workaround for your problems, and minor releases are not all that far apart. As for compile options, the solution is simple, compile in all feature options and the most commonly used settings into the binary packages, for the standard i386 CPU. Surely that would be the standard amd64. A good software philosophy is to allow software to work out of the box with as little configuration as possible, but allow everything to be configured by the user if they want, by shipping software with reasonable defaults which can be overridden by the user. Make simple things easy and complicated things doable. In GUI, by default, complexity can be hidden from users, but if people want fine grain control, they should be free to use advanced screens of the GUI to get complex, fine grained control. In GUI design, more commonly used settings can be provided more upfront while advanced features for use by experts can be placed deeper in advanced or expert screens oft the GUI. Everything should be able to be configured or accomplished by both GUI and CLI and API. Are aware that FreeBSD is mostly a server OS? doing any system wide all at once OS-release upgrades at all. There is no reason why kernel and userland programs have to be upgraded at the same time... The idea of waiting on a FreeBSD kernel release to upgrade firefox is absurd, and the idea that firefox must be upgraded during a kernel upgrade is also absurd. You don't have to do that, that's complete nonsense. There really should be little reason for release upgrades anymore these days, when the different parts of the system can be upgraded independantly through a binary package management tool, including kernel and user programs. When a new kernel is released, there is no reason to reinstall all of the packages on the system at the same time. You reinstall packages because there are major library changes when you cross a major base-system release. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Still having trouble with package upgrades
On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 03:20:19PM -0500, David Jackson wrote: I think that your statement here is fundamentally flawed and wrong, because you have assumed that it is impossible for the OS to be able to be user friendly and geek friendly at the same time. This is wrong. In fact, I have outlined ways repeatedly that FreeBSD could provide an easy to use package system without compromising on the flexibility of ports in any way. The idea that the OS has to be either difficult to use or it has to be easy to use for novices is wrong. The OS can be both and I have written about ways that can be done, in fact, I can show how it can be done in every area. For instance, with better binary packages, those are simply built from ports using the best set of options. Those who want to compile for themselves will still be able to do so, just fine. So you have presented a position here that is simply not true. FreeBSD can be more user friendly and as the same time be flexible and friendly to experts such as yourself. its not an either or choice. It can be, if there aren't resources available to devote to both. You've brought this up multiple times. No one is interested in actually doing it. Maybe you should do it yourself and provide the person-power and hardware to get it done right. If it works, I suspect that the FreeBSD devs would accept it and make you an official contributor. Otherwise, as has been noted several times, you are not FreeBSD's target audience. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Still having trouble with package upgrades
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 10:56 AM, David Jackson djackson...@gmail.com wrote: You have just now declared complete indifference to and alienated about 99% of the potential user base and their needs, those who could care less about compiling source and messing with compiler options. Maybe FreeBSD isn't right for them. It's not meant to be all things to all people. It may be that a different OS would fill your needs better. If so, you should use it! If you're determined to run some kind of BSD UNIX, you should investigate PC-BSD, which is meant to be easier to install and maintain for non-technical users. For someone who claims to have given up on FreeBSD, you certainly seem to have a lot of time to argue about it. Why the anger? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Still having trouble with package upgrades
On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 12:42:52 -0500, David Jackson wrote: On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Polytropon free...@edvax.de wrote: David, allow me to add a few thoughts: On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 11:28:47 -0500, David Jackson wrote: As for compile options, the solution is simple, compile in all feature options and the most commonly used settings into the binary packages, for the standard i386 CPU. I think this can develop into a major problem in certain countries where listening to MP3 is illegal. :-) You are talking about the codec. Mostly, yes, but also about what to include: For example, the mplayer port can build mplayer _and_ mencoder. For a GUI version, there's gmplayer and gmencoder. A universal package would contain them all. What Ubuntu seems to do is distribute these codecs as a seperate nonfree addon package which are then loaded by applications at run time. You see, options do not necessarily have to be compiled into programs, they can be loaded at libraries and then loaded by programs at run time if they are available. I know this approach, it's effective within the Linux eco- system and the special view at free vs. nonfree. However, delegating installation and updating tasks from system tools to individual applications looks... hmmm... looks very old-fashioned and wrong to me. Just imagine 100 installed applications would not start, instead inter- actively annoying you that there may be updates available, and you should install them now, and reboot? That kind of exaggeration is an example of how to to it totally wrong. Loading things at runtime is something different than permanently installing things to the system. A web page loads a Javascript source file at runtime, but do you want it to automatically install a web server to your system? :-) If people want customisations then they can build the software for themselves. That's what they'll do anyway. :-) No, usually they do not. Few people except for hard core geeks want to mess around with compile options. most will use runtime configuration through a GUI which is faster. Well, I'm not a hard core geek, but I have to make things running on limited resources. For example, what if you need to turn a 300 MHz P2 into a usable workstation? There's no other way than dealing with /etc/make.conf and looking at port options. Those who intend to customize things usually are familiar with the options that are presented, even though theose options might look like logorrhea to others. Most option screens are full of words (of dependencies or features) that do not make any sense (and there's no way to conclude what they do except doing a web search). For those who tweak, they are no obstacle, but for newcomers they may really be annoying: Do I need KLOMPATSH and SHLORTZ support? And if I do, what do I need them for? :-) When a new kernel is released, there is no reason to reinstall all of the packages on the system at the same time. Since the kernel and userland packages have different development cycles, there is no reason why there has to be synchronization of the upgrading. It sometimes is neccessary, for example if kernel interfaces have changed. There is some means of compatibility provided by the compat_ ports. But if you start upgrading things, libraries can break, and the system may become unstable (in terms of not being able of running certain programs anymore). Just see how kernel and world are out of sync errors can even cause the system to stop booting. Degrading the inner workings of the OS to just another package can cause trouble. Simple updates as they are often performed on Linux systems can render the whole installation totally unusable because something minor went wrong. :-) A well designed system will provide backwards compatability through various strategies and this does not necessarily need to affect internal software design as the backwards compatability can also be provided by compatability layers and glue code. Please do not underestimate the complexity of an operating system. It is not a simple brick of chocolate. It's very complicated, end even easy things like backwards compatibility and universal interfaces need a lot of complexity behind the scenes. The more versions to skip, the more work is needed to keep it running. Just have a look at today's (!) common mainframe operating systems that still allow you to address a card punch in your program. :-) An OS that requires a user to reinstall everything just to upgrade the kernel is not user friendly. Why do consider a user being supposed to mess with kernels? This question can show that I'm already too old: Programs are for users, kernels are for sysadmins. Sysadmins do stuff properly, even if they shoot their foot in order to learn an important lesson. :-) Users have to upgrade the kernel, with a well designed OS this is a process that does not
Re: Still having trouble with package upgrades
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 4:27 PM, David Brodbeck g...@gull.us wrote: On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 10:56 AM, David Jackson djackson...@gmail.com wrote: You have just now declared complete indifference to and alienated about 99% of the potential user base and their needs, those who could care less about compiling source and messing with compiler options. Maybe FreeBSD isn't right for them. It's not meant to be all things to all people. It may be that a different OS would fill your needs better. If so, you should use it! If you're determined to run some kind of BSD UNIX, you should investigate PC-BSD, which is meant to be easier to install and maintain for non-technical users. I actually did try PC-BSD and its not better than FreeBSD. An OS that demands users completely reinstall the operating system just to upgrade is user friendly? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Still having trouble with package upgrades
On 07/03/2012 18:56, David Jackson wrote: You have just now declared complete indifference to and alienated about 99% of the potential user base and their needs, those who could care less about compiling source and messing with compiler options. You're forgetting that one size does *not* fit all. There are many systems and much hardware out there that needs to be tweaked before it will just work. And there is some hardware that is non-free and will not work without some software or firmware blob. And it's couldn't care less not could. -- freebsd at growveg dot net ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Still having trouble with package upgrades
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Polytropon free...@edvax.de wrote: On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 12:05:37 -0500, David Jackson wrote: Many of your issues are non-issues, as your suggestions were implemented in some form long ago. For example, updated applications are compiled and available online. You can use pkg_add -r to install the newest binary package that is available, or you can update your an installed application by updating the ports and using portupgrade, which has options to control whether you compile updates from source or install binary packages. pkg-add -r does not seem to be an upgrade all packages sort of feature I am looking for. I have tried pkg-upgrade, portmaster, and portupgrade, all of these do not work. The portupgrade -PP command should be fine, if your ports tree is up to date. portupgrade -PP did not work for me, it gave me error messages about failed downloads. I am working on getting the logs Those should be interesting. From my own experience, I know there is some software that cannot be easily be updated the binary way, but for most things, it should just work, especially if you keep the default options and have sufficient time. :-) -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Still having trouble with package upgrades
On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 22:04:35 -0500, David Jackson wrote: On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Polytropon free...@edvax.de wrote: On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 12:05:37 -0500, David Jackson wrote: Many of your issues are non-issues, as your suggestions were implemented in some form long ago. For example, updated applications are compiled and available online. You can use pkg_add -r to install the newest binary package that is available, or you can update your an installed application by updating the ports and using portupgrade, which has options to control whether you compile updates from source or install binary packages. pkg-add -r does not seem to be an upgrade all packages sort of feature I am looking for. I have tried pkg-upgrade, portmaster, and portupgrade, all of these do not work. The portupgrade -PP command should be fine, if your ports tree is up to date. portupgrade -PP did not work for me, it gave me error messages about failed downloads. Have you been able to perform the download manually? This is _not_ for actual use, but for diagnostics! Is the URI accessed by portupgrade properly constructed? Typically it's a FTP URI that you can check using the system's standard FTP tool (or web browser, if you want). I had similar trouble years ago when portupgrade wasn't considered mature enough, but today there should be a good reason for a failing download. :-) -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Still having trouble with package upgrades
On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 10:04:35PM -0500, David Jackson wrote: On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Polytropon free...@edvax.de wrote: On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 12:05:37 -0500, David Jackson wrote: Many of your issues are non-issues, as your suggestions were implemented in some form long ago. For example, updated applications are compiled and available online. You can use pkg_add -r to install the newest binary package that is available, or you can update your an installed application by updating the ports and using portupgrade, which has options to control whether you compile updates from source or install binary packages. pkg-add -r does not seem to be an upgrade all packages sort of feature I am looking for. I have tried pkg-upgrade, portmaster, and portupgrade, all of these do not work. The portupgrade -PP command should be fine, if your ports tree is up to date. portupgrade -PP did not work for me, it gave me error messages about failed downloads. I am working on getting the logs Work harder. Try script(1). Regards, -- Frank Contact info: http://www.shute.org.uk/misc/contact.html pgprrmfB52EBE.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Still having trouble with package upgrades
On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 10:04:35PM -0500, David Jackson wrote: On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Polytropon free...@edvax.de wrote: On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 12:05:37 -0500, David Jackson wrote: Many of your issues are non-issues, as your suggestions were implemented in some form long ago. For example, updated applications are compiled and available online. You can use pkg_add -r to install the newest binary package that is available, or you can update your an installed application by updating the ports and using portupgrade, which has options to control whether you compile updates from source or install binary packages. pkg-add -r does not seem to be an upgrade all packages sort of feature I am looking for. I have tried pkg-upgrade, portmaster, and portupgrade, all of these do not work. The portupgrade -PP command should be fine, if your ports tree is up to date. portupgrade -PP did not work for me, it gave me error messages about failed downloads. Assuming you were trying on a RELEASE: Packages for a RELEASE are frozen. Since, most of the time, versions in ports tree are newer than the frozen ones, naturally, you'll get the error about failed download(s) (disregarding that in addition to that you might have proxy problems etc. that others have mentioned). Packages built against STABLE are generally up to date, and you can safely use them with the corresponding RELEASE. To do that, change the PACKAGESITE environment variable as described in http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/packages-using.html and pkg_fetch(1). -- Once the toothpaste is out of the tube, it's hard to get it back in. -- H. R. Haldeman ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
