Re: Unable to upgrade packages on FreeBSD
2012-02-01 19:16, David Jackson skrev: I did not save them, there is really no way to save a copy of them unless I copy them by hand. I take it you are new to FreeBSD. May I introduce you to script man script(1) ___ 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: Unable to upgrade packages on FreeBSD
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 5:18 AM, Bernt Hansson b...@bananmonarki.se wrote: 2012-02-01 19:16, David Jackson skrev: I did not save them, there is really no way to save a copy of them unless I copy them by hand. I take it you are new to FreeBSD. May I introduce you to script man script(1) __**_ 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 One thing I noticed, which may cause some trouble(?) http://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-10-current/ is empty, no packages. So pkg_add fails for everything... Running 10-CURRENT I have to set PACKAGESITE to http://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-current/Latest/ It's been years since I've run a HEAD version of FreeBSD - maybe this is common knowledge. :) But It seems like there could be a symlink or something. Also, I'm still looking into it - but it seems like it would be good to have an easy way to 'reinstall' a package. It seems to be pretty stubborn when trying to deinstall/reinstall stuff. For example, after i upgraded from 9.0-RELEASE to 10-CURRENT, the thing was complaining about libintl, gettext, iconv. pkg_add was refusing to 'reinstall' (but this might be related my own ignorance), so I ended up going into ports and building, then the system was fulling operational, yay. However, it could be that these did not need to be reinstalled. pkg_add was telling me I already had the latest versions installed, and when I finally got down to the meat of my problem I found that my /etc/rc was never replaced. Either I fat-fingered a mergemaster prompt (but I really thought I was paying close attention), or mergemaster missed it! :) There was no /var/tmp/temproot/etc/rc after mergemaster, and mergemaster reported that only two files were left to do by hand, which is what I had intended. (ie, groups, master.passwd) But doing a diff between /usr/src/etc/rc (i think) and /etc/rc I saw they were different, copied the file and 10-CURRENT ran perfectly. Waitman Gobble San Jose California USA ___ 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: Unable to upgrade packages on FreeBSD
At 19:16 01/02/2012, David Jackson wrote: They seem to have failed because they couldn't find the package on the download site. Other errors I got were that the package it had downloaded had an unrecognized format. I did not save them, there is really no way to save a copy of them unless I copy them by hand. I will have to rerun the commands to get the error messages and then transfer them by hand. In my first mail i didn't think about this, but: In your OP you don't say the version of FreeBSD you're running. Show a uname -a please. Is it a RELEASE, like 8.2-RELEASEpx? If it's a RELEASE perhaps you don't know that the packages are frozen but all are known to work without problems. Switch to -STABLE if you want access newer packages but perhaps there will be problems with them from time to time. Check -stable maillist. HTH ___ 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: Unable to upgrade packages on FreeBSD
At 11:42 31/01/2012, you wrote: While your offer is made with the best of intentions, I doubt the project would feel able take you up on it. The problem is simply one of security -- while crowd-sourcing package compilation would be a pretty sweet technical solution to much of the scaling and resource cost problems, it offers far too much opportunity for people up-to-no-good to be able to introduce trojans, spyware and so forth. No no, i didn't said i will make them manually, i wanted to said that i can add one server amd64 to the pool of automate servers that make the packages, i think it works automatically and distribute workload like boinc or other similar net. About the people which introduce trojans, rootkits etc... i didn't think on that issue and is really a very important stopper. With the rest of your mail, i agree with you, my idea was completly halfthinked (is it the correct word?). Mental Note to remember: Beside daemons, there are devils. L ___ 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: Unable to upgrade packages on FreeBSD
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 3:33 AM, Eduardo Morras nec...@retena.com wrote: At 11:42 31/01/2012, you wrote: While your offer is made with the best of intentions, I doubt the project would feel able take you up on it. The problem is simply one of security -- while crowd-sourcing package compilation would be a pretty sweet technical solution to much of the scaling and resource cost problems, it offers far too much opportunity for people up-to-no-good to be able to introduce trojans, spyware and so forth. No no, i didn't said i will make them manually, i wanted to said that i can add one server amd64 to the pool of automate servers that make the packages, i think it works automatically and distribute workload like boinc or other similar net. About the people which introduce trojans, rootkits etc... i didn't think on that issue and is really a very important stopper. With the rest of your mail, i agree with you, my idea was completly halfthinked (is it the correct word?). That security issue is a serious problem with that idea. I had thought of this idea before and discarded it because its unworkable (the crowd sourcing thing). Mental Note to remember: Beside daemons, there are devils. L __**_ 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: Unable to upgrade packages on FreeBSD
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 12:54 AM, Bernt Hansson b...@bananmonarki.se wrote: 2012-01-31 01:13, freebsd-lists-erik@**erikosterholm.orgfreebsd-lists-e...@erikosterholm.orgskrev: Oh come on, guys. David is the same person who said that FreeBSD was poorly documented. http://osdir.com/ml/freebsd-**questions/2011-12/msg00684.**htmlhttp://osdir.com/ml/freebsd-questions/2011-12/msg00684.html I'll give him the benefit of the doubt a bit longer. I do not. He is a whino. Blocked here from now on. My posts have always been sincere. It would seem to you that anyone who does not agree with you is whining. I would suggest it is you who have an unreasonable attitude. At least respect other people's right to express their views. __**_ 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: Unable to upgrade packages on FreeBSD
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 12:51 AM, Bernt Hansson b...@bananmonarki.se wrote: 2012-01-30 18:52, David Jackson skrev: I have tried endlessly to no avail to upgrade binary the packages on Freebsd to the latest version. I have tried: *portupgrade -PP -a *portmaster -PP -a *pkg_update All fail miserably and totally and have left the system in an unuseable state. What is the error message? They seem to have failed because they couldn't find the package on the download site. Other errors I got were that the package it had downloaded had an unrecognized format. I did not save them, there is really no way to save a copy of them unless I copy them by hand. I will have to rerun the commands to get the error messages and then transfer them by hand. Why can't FreeBSD just make the package system just work. It's already just works It does for you. I've had big problems with it. Right after installing FreeBSD I should be able to type a single command such as update_packages http://www.se.freebsd.org/doc/**en_US.ISO8859-1/books/** handbook/updating-upgrading-**freebsdupdate.htmlhttp://www.se.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/updating-upgrading-freebsdupdate.html ___ 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: Unable to upgrade packages on FreeBSD
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 01:52:19AM +0100, Polytropon wrote: On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 18:40:50 -0500, David Jackson wrote: On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Polytropon wrote: Other things to keep in mind are language settings. One example is OpenOffice which needs to have the language setting at compile time, especially if you're not using the english language. You could compile a version of that for each language and I think thats what Ubuntu does, or, just compile maybe top 1 or 2 most commonly used language version and then other versions could be user compiled. There are, I think... at least 10 languages available, and combine this with Gnome, KDE and CUPS support OFF or ON, and you have 10*2*2*2 = 80 packages, and still no scheme to name them. :-) Don't forget compiling for multiple architectures. That adds more options -- and, unlike some of those other options, compiling for different architectures is often actually a mutually-exclusive option set. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.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: Unable to upgrade packages on FreeBSD
At 00:45 31/01/2012, RW wrote: Making it work like Ubuntu would need a lot more hardware and a lot more work from port maintainers to support branching the ports tree. At the moment there aren't really enough to maintain one tree. Making a resume/summary of the thread; more hardware, time and people are needed to maintain a package system up-to-date. I have a free server (amd64 freebsd8.2p6), if i built all packages with their standard options, that's without make config, Can i upload them to the official package ftp? Should i make my own un-official ftp package server to allow others download them? Perhaps it's not clear, this answer has ironic mode off, joking mode off and i want to collaborate making the standard packages. When i needed the package system? When i don't want a downtime if a server must be reinstalled. Compiling everything takes too much time for non critical ports (bash, gcc4.6, ...), even at first i pkg_add important apps, when everything is working, i update them by ports. L ___ 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: Unable to upgrade packages on FreeBSD
On 31/01/2012 09:56, Eduardo Morras wrote: Making a resume/summary of the thread; more hardware, time and people are needed to maintain a package system up-to-date. I have a free server (amd64 freebsd8.2p6), if i built all packages with their standard options, that's without make config, Can i upload them to the official package ftp? Should i make my own un-official ftp package server to allow others download them? Perhaps it's not clear, this answer has ironic mode off, joking mode off and i want to collaborate making the standard packages. While your offer is made with the best of intentions, I doubt the project would feel able take you up on it. The problem is simply one of security -- while crowd-sourcing package compilation would be a pretty sweet technical solution to much of the scaling and resource cost problems, it offers far too much opportunity for people up-to-no-good to be able to introduce trojans, spyware and so forth. Setting up your own package build system and ftp site -- well, there's nothing preventing you from doing that, but again, it's a trust thing. Unless people can believe in the provenance of the packages you provide, it's not going to be sensible for them to download from you. So it's only people that know you personally, friends, relations, workmates and people that know and trust people willing to trust you; they would be the initial audience for your new package building and distribution thing. Even if you had an enormous social circle all of whom happened to be avid FreeBSD users, I doubt that would actually provide enough demand to make the whole venture worthwhile. The best ways to contribute are (a) to make a donation via the FreeBSD Foundation and (b) take up maintainership on some ports. As ever in any project of this type, most of the work goes through smoothly and it's that minority of problem ports that eat up so much of the time. Maintained ports have fewer problems. Some of the more paranoid amongst you may be asking yourselves if, in the light of what I say above, you really can trust packages from anywhere other than the official ftp.freebsd.org server. Locations like (for example) ftp.uk.freebsd.org (which, although blessed as an official mirror site, is run by a completely different set of people.) The answer is somewhere on the 'probably -- maybe' continuum. Can you actually trust the people running the mirror site? (In the case of ftp.uk.freebsd.org, as of a day or so ago that's the UK mirror service run by the University of Kent who are clearly of unimpeachable reputation.) Implementing digital signatures on packages would go a long way to removing that uncertainty. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate JID: matt...@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Unable to upgrade packages on FreeBSD
I have tried endlessly to no avail to upgrade binary the packages on Freebsd to the latest version. I have tried: *portupgrade -PP -a *portmaster -PP -a *pkg_update All fail miserably and totally and have left the system in an unuseable state. Why can't FreeBSD just make the package system just work. Right after installing FreeBSD I should be able to type a single command such as update_packages and it should update all packages on the system, with no errors and without requiring any configurations to be troubleshooted, it should work out of the box. Why not? Why is something so simple so difficult and impossible? Ubuntu can do it, why not FreeBSD? Why cant FreeBSD Just make the package upgrades work. ___ 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: Unable to upgrade packages on FreeBSD
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:52:07 -0500 David Jackson djackson...@gmail.com wrote: I have tried endlessly to no avail to upgrade binary the packages on Freebsd to the latest version. I have tried: *portupgrade -PP -a *portmaster -PP -a *pkg_update All fail miserably and totally and have left the system in an unuseable state. What's unusable? For instance, servers are perfectly usable without graphical tools. If you have tried `endlessly` why didn't you consult /usr/ports/UPDATING and just recompile the ports without using binary packages? Or you might want to try PCBSD, it's FreeBSD with some fancy stuff taken care of which might solve the problem you complain about. Why can't FreeBSD just make the package system just work. Right after installing FreeBSD I should be able to type a single command such as update_packages and it should update all packages on the system, with no errors and without requiring any configurations to be troubleshooted, it should work out of the box. Why not? Why is something so simple so difficult and impossible? Ubuntu can do it, why not FreeBSD? FreeBSD unlike Ubuntu is an entirely volunteer project. Ubuntu has a dedicated corporation working on it and I guess a larger user base. Why cant FreeBSD Just make the package upgrades work. Because uh well it's not up to FreeBSD since the ports work perfectly with the documentation that comes with it or it might depend on the user base also, but _you_ can help to make binary package upgrades work better. Disclaimer: http://www.ose.nl/email ___ 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: Unable to upgrade packages on FreeBSD
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Bas Smeelen b.smee...@ose.nl wrote: On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:52:07 -0500 David Jackson djackson...@gmail.com wrote: I have tried endlessly to no avail to upgrade binary the packages on Freebsd to the latest version. I have tried: *portupgrade -PP -a *portmaster -PP -a *pkg_update All fail miserably and totally and have left the system in an unuseable state. What's unusable? For instance, servers are perfectly usable without graphical tools. If you have tried `endlessly` why didn't you consult /usr/ports/UPDATING and just recompile the ports without using binary packages? Or you might want to try PCBSD, it's FreeBSD with some fancy stuff taken care of which might solve the problem you complain about. I wish to use binary packages and I specifically do not want to compile anything, it tends to take far too long to compile programs and would rather install some packages and have it all work right away. Binary packages are a big time saver and are more efficient. It should be easy for FreeBSD to make it easy to install the most recent versions of all binary packages, its beyond belief they cannot pull off such a simple ans straight forward, and basic part of any OS. Why can't FreeBSD just make the package system just work. Right after installing FreeBSD I should be able to type a single command such as update_packages and it should update all packages on the system, with no errors and without requiring any configurations to be troubleshooted, it should work out of the box. Why not? Why is something so simple so difficult and impossible? Ubuntu can do it, why not FreeBSD? FreeBSD unlike Ubuntu is an entirely volunteer project. Ubuntu has a dedicated corporation working on it and I guess a larger user base. The reason that FreeBSD has a smaller user base is because it has a dysfunctional package system and it is hard to upgrade package to the most recent version, making FreeBSD more difficult to use/ But doing a workable package system is not difficult, it something that FreeBSD should be easily able to make it easy to have a way to upgrade packages to most recent versions out of box anbd in an error free and reliable way. Why cant FreeBSD Just make the package upgrades work. Because uh well it's not up to FreeBSD since the ports work perfectly with the documentation that comes with it or it might depend on the user base also, but _you_ can help to make binary package upgrades work better. A working package system is a part of any good operating system and saves time from having to compile programs. It is more convenient for most users to use packages so having a package system will make FreeBSD more popular. the reason freebsd is not used by as many people as Ubuntu is because of the extreme difficulty and unreliability of using FreeBSD. FreeBSD does not HAVE to make the system reasonably easy to use for common users who want to install packages, but it would be the right thing to do, especially if FreeBSD wants more users. Disclaimer: http://www.ose.nl/email ___ 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: Unable to upgrade packages on FreeBSD
You talk a lot about how easy it is to maintain a binary package system. I would like you to convince me that it is easy, keeping in mind that it should remain compatible with the ports system. I am willing to be convinced. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.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: Unable to upgrade packages on FreeBSD
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:04:56 -0500, David Jackson wrote: I wish to use binary packages and I specifically do not want to compile anything, it tends to take far too long to compile programs and would rather install some packages and have it all work right away. That's often true, especially when you're low on resources (CPU speed, disk, RAM). Binary packages are a big time saver and are more efficient. More efficient? Depends. In regards of installation, they're often faster. In regards of spped during operation... well, depends. :-) The binary packages are compiled from the ports sources with the maintainer's default options. Those options might not perform optimal on _every_ imaginable system. That's why compiling from source can make programs run faster when certain optimizations (e. g. specific CFLAGS, selection of CPU at compile time) are applied. Also functionality may increase as the default options may leave something out. A common example is mplayer: When compiled, it can have much more functionality and can even work wonders on old systems. The binary package doesn't give you that. Other things to keep in mind are language settings. One example is OpenOffice which needs to have the language setting at compile time, especially if you're not using the english language. Finally, there may be licensing restrictions that forbid the distribution in binary form, or even the distribution through the FreeBSD system. Traditional Java may be seen as an example. It should be easy for FreeBSD to make it easy to install the most recent versions of all binary packages, its beyond belief they cannot pull off such a simple ans straight forward, and basic part of any OS. Again, it depends. The options maintainers define as the default are typically okay for the build clusters that process them - they create the binary packages from the ports tree. At some occassions, options and dependencies can take into account things that are already installed, e. g. foo uses bar if bar is installed, but if it's not installed, it fetches and installs baz instead. Just imagine how many packages you would need to map all possible combinations of dependencies present, options set and languages available, and _then_ come up with a naming scheme for the packages. :-) I know it is _partially_ possible, or _has been_ in the past. My famous example here is pkg_add -r de-openoffice to get a full installation of OpenOffice that would work (fully functional) and even bring a dictionary. With the newer versions, this easy approach isn't possible anymore. Just consider X: With or without HAL? With which drivers? A package plus updates for every possible combination? The reason that FreeBSD has a smaller user base is because it has a dysfunctional package system and it is hard to upgrade package to the most recent version, making FreeBSD more difficult to use/ I do not agree with this statement. The user base of FreeBSD consists of a major amount of people who do not use the binary packages, as it seems, because ports work well for them. Of course I do not negate the value of the availability of precompiled packages. In fact, I did use them a lot, but now that I have sufficient power at home, I feel more comfortable with building from source. However, I do like the concept of doing pkg_add -r something that will install the program itself and the dependencies if needed, especially for things that do not need any further tuning. But doing a workable package system is not difficult, it something that FreeBSD should be easily able to make it easy to have a way to upgrade packages to most recent versions out of box anbd in an error free and reliable way. I have named some examples that show how difficult it can get. That is only for installation. If you consider updating, things may get a bit more complicated. -- 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: Unable to upgrade packages on FreeBSD
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:04:56 -0500 David Jackson djackson...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Bas Smeelen b.smee...@ose.nl wrote: On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:52:07 -0500 David Jackson djackson...@gmail.com wrote: I have tried endlessly to no avail to upgrade binary the packages on Freebsd to the latest version. I have tried: *portupgrade -PP -a *portmaster -PP -a *pkg_update All fail miserably and totally and have left the system in an unuseable state. What's unusable? For instance, servers are perfectly usable without graphical tools. If you have tried `endlessly` why didn't you consult /usr/ports/UPDATING and just recompile the ports without using binary packages? Or you might want to try PCBSD, it's FreeBSD with some fancy stuff taken care of which might solve the problem you complain about. I wish to use binary packages and I specifically do not want to compile anything, it tends to take far too long to compile programs and would rather install some packages and have it all work right away. Binary packages are a big time saver and are more efficient. It should be easy for FreeBSD to make it easy to install the most recent versions of all binary packages, its beyond belief they cannot pull off such a simple ans straight forward, and basic part of any OS. I understand your motivations. On my 1,6GHz celeron it takes a lot of time to compile the ~600 ports I use, especially chromium for instance and when I forget to give an option to not bother me with questions it sits there waiting for me to enter y or n. Ports/ packages are not `a basic part` of the FreeBSD OS. I also don't think it is simple and straight forward to satisfy all different user requirements and options in a package system. Ubuntu for my taste has had flukes in many ways many times in the past and still has (often enough the developers desktop users complain). It works good with complete upgrades at times, on the other hand it still leaves me sometimes with an unusable freezing OS on the desktop, and before every upgrade it has becomes mandatory to me to first try it with an USB boot. This is something I cannot have on server systems being used 24x7. Why can't FreeBSD just make the package system just work. Right after installing FreeBSD I should be able to type a single command such as update_packages and it should update all packages on the system, with no errors and without requiring any configurations to be troubleshooted, it should work out of the box. Why not? Why is something so simple so difficult and impossible? Ubuntu can do it, why not FreeBSD? FreeBSD unlike Ubuntu is an entirely volunteer project. Ubuntu has a dedicated corporation working on it and I guess a larger user base. The reason that FreeBSD has a smaller user base is because it has a dysfunctional package system and it is hard to upgrade package to the most recent version, making FreeBSD more difficult to use/ But doing a workable package system is not difficult, it something that FreeBSD should be easily able to make it easy to have a way to upgrade packages to most recent versions out of box anbd in an error free and reliable way. Why cant FreeBSD Just make the package upgrades work. Because uh well it's not up to FreeBSD since the ports work perfectly with the documentation that comes with it or it might depend on the user base also, but _you_ can help to make binary package upgrades work better. A working package system is a part of any good operating system and saves time from having to compile programs. It is more convenient for most users to use packages so having a package system will make FreeBSD more popular. the reason freebsd is not used by as many people as Ubuntu is because of the extreme difficulty and unreliability of using FreeBSD. Well, if you are talking about desktop work places, you're probably right. This is what PCBSD is for, or even Ubuntu or other 'Operating Systems' On servers however FreeBSD is extremely reliable. It requires the operator to take care of the system, OS updates and upgrades are rock solid for decades and application (ports/ packages) updates/ upgrades require the operator to evaluate the changes in detail. I have had a lot of trouble by the ease of upgrade/ update on other 'OS' applications which I did not encounter on FreeBSD because FreeBSD required me to think about what I was doing and then it goes well the first time. FreeBSD does not HAVE to make the system reasonably easy to use for common users who want to install packages, but it would be the right thing to do, especially if FreeBSD wants more users. Again PCBSD might be an option. It depends on what kind of users. Users who think and can rely on a rock solid OS or users who just upgrade/ update and then sit with failing application services, database changes and so on, because they did not read
Re: Unable to upgrade packages on FreeBSD
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:04:56 -0500 David Jackson djackson...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Bas Smeelen b.smee...@ose.nl wrote: On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:52:07 -0500 David Jackson djackson...@gmail.com wrote: I have tried endlessly to no avail to upgrade binary the packages on Freebsd to the latest version. I have tried: *portupgrade -PP -a *portmaster -PP -a *pkg_update All fail miserably and totally and have left the system in an unuseable state. What's unusable? For instance, servers are perfectly usable without graphical tools. If you have tried `endlessly` why didn't you consult /usr/ports/UPDATING and just recompile the ports without using binary packages? Or you might want to try PCBSD, it's FreeBSD with some fancy stuff taken care of which might solve the problem you complain about. I wish to use binary packages and I specifically do not want to compile anything, it tends to take far too long to compile programs and would rather install some packages and have it all work right away. Binary packages are a big time saver and are more efficient. It should be easy for FreeBSD to make it easy to install the most recent versions of all binary packages, its beyond belief they cannot pull off such a simple ans straight forward, and basic part of any OS. I understand your motivations. On my 1,6GHz celeron it takes a lot of time to compile the ~600 ports I use, especially chromium for instance and when I forget to give an option to not bother me with questions it sits there waiting for me to enter y or n. Ports/ packages are not `a basic part` of the FreeBSD OS. I also don't think it is simple and straight forward to satisfy all different user requirements and options in a package system. Ubuntu for my taste has had flukes in many ways many times in the past and still has (often enough the developers desktop users complain). It works good with complete upgrades at times, on the other hand it still leaves me sometimes with an unusable freezing OS on the desktop, and before every upgrade it has becomes mandatory to me to first try it with an USB boot. This is something I cannot have on server systems being used 24x7. Why can't FreeBSD just make the package system just work. Right after installing FreeBSD I should be able to type a single command such as update_packages and it should update all packages on the system, with no errors and without requiring any configurations to be troubleshooted, it should work out of the box. Why not? Why is something so simple so difficult and impossible? Ubuntu can do it, why not FreeBSD? FreeBSD unlike Ubuntu is an entirely volunteer project. Ubuntu has a dedicated corporation working on it and I guess a larger user base. The reason that FreeBSD has a smaller user base is because it has a dysfunctional package system and it is hard to upgrade package to the most recent version, making FreeBSD more difficult to use/ But doing a workable package system is not difficult, it something that FreeBSD should be easily able to make it easy to have a way to upgrade packages to most recent versions out of box anbd in an error free and reliable way. Why cant FreeBSD Just make the package upgrades work. Because uh well it's not up to FreeBSD since the ports work perfectly with the documentation that comes with it or it might depend on the user base also, but _you_ can help to make binary package upgrades work better. A working package system is a part of any good operating system and saves time from having to compile programs. It is more convenient for most users to use packages so having a package system will make FreeBSD more popular. the reason freebsd is not used by as many people as Ubuntu is because of the extreme difficulty and unreliability of using FreeBSD. Well, if you are talking about desktop work places, you're probably right. This is what PCBSD is for, or even Ubuntu or other 'Operating Systems' On servers however FreeBSD is extremely reliable. It requires the operator to take care of the system, OS updates and upgrades are rock solid for decades and application (ports/ packages) updates/ upgrades require the operator to evaluate the changes in detail. I have had a lot of trouble by the ease of upgrade/ update on other 'OS' applications which I did not encounter on FreeBSD because FreeBSD required me to think about what I was doing and then it goes well the first time. FreeBSD does not HAVE to make the system reasonably easy to use for common users who want to install packages, but it would be the right thing to do, especially if FreeBSD wants more users. Again PCBSD might be an option. It depends on what kind of users. Users who think and can rely on a rock solid OS or users who just upgrade/ update and then sit with failing application services, database changes and
Re: Unable to upgrade packages on FreeBSD
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Polytropon free...@edvax.de wrote: On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:04:56 -0500, David Jackson wrote: I wish to use binary packages and I specifically do not want to compile anything, it tends to take far too long to compile programs and would rather install some packages and have it all work right away. That's often true, especially when you're low on resources (CPU speed, disk, RAM). Binary packages are a big time saver and are more efficient. More efficient? Depends. In regards of installation, they're often faster. In regards of spped during operation... well, depends. :-) The binary packages are compiled from the ports sources with the maintainer's default options. Those options might not perform optimal on _every_ imaginable system. That's why compiling from source can make programs run faster when certain optimizations (e. g. specific CFLAGS, selection of CPU at compile time) are applied. Also functionality may increase as the default options may leave something out. A common example is mplayer: When compiled, it can have much more functionality and can even work wonders on old systems. The binary package doesn't give you that. That is true. Well, unless is a problem with cross CPU compatability, all available options should be compiled in by default. Mplayer (or it was some video players) has a huge number of display targets for instance, they can be runtime selected so support for all of them can be compiled in my default and the user can then select which one to use at runtime. I have used video player where you can choose between OpenGL, plain X11, Xvideo, and many other display options and I actually liked having these kinds of runtime choices. A package for these programs can be provided and if a user needs a compile time option they can then spot compile them as needed. Other things to keep in mind are language settings. One example is OpenOffice which needs to have the language setting at compile time, especially if you're not using the english language. You could compile a version of that for each language and I think thats what Ubuntu does, or, just compile maybe top 1 or 2 most commonly used language version and then other versions could be user compiled. Finally, there may be licensing restrictions that forbid the distribution in binary form, or even the distribution through the FreeBSD system. Traditional Java may be seen as an example. This is rare, but it happens. Most programs dont have this problem. a few programs must be compiled like this, it is a lot easier to compile that handful of programs for me than it is to compile the entire system. It should be easy for FreeBSD to make it easy to install the most recent versions of all binary packages, its beyond belief they cannot pull off such a simple ans straight forward, and basic part of any OS. Again, it depends. The options maintainers define as the default are typically okay for the build clusters that process them - they create the binary packages from the ports tree. At some occassions, options and dependencies can take into account things that are already installed, e. g. foo uses bar if bar is installed, but if it's not installed, it fetches and installs baz instead. Just imagine how many packages you would need to map all possible combinations of dependencies present, options set and languages available, and _then_ come up with a naming scheme for the packages. :-) Just compile package for the package download site with all optionals and functionality available. If it has optional dependancies, just install all of the dependancies when the package that needs them is installed. Then user can has all features avialable at runtime. If its an one or the other type option, compile with the most commonly used setting. In many cases they use run time options in programs so this is not as much of an issue in those cases. if people want to make their own compile time options then they can resort to compiling the package themselves. I know it is _partially_ possible, or _has been_ in the past. My famous example here is pkg_add -r de-openoffice to get a full installation of OpenOffice that would work (fully functional) and even bring a dictionary. With the newer versions, this easy approach isn't possible anymore. Just consider X: With or without HAL? With which drivers? A package plus updates for every possible combination? Probably throw in all options at compile time for packages, such as HAL, and then it will be available if people need to use it. If people dont want a component, then they compile on their own. As far as dependancies, the program can be compiled to rely on them and they would be installed automatically when the depending application is installed. Im not sure what HAL does but Ive installed it for X Window System, if it makes it work better, I have no problem with installing HAL. The
Re: Unable to upgrade packages on FreeBSD
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:52:07 -0500 David Jackson wrote: I have tried endlessly to no avail to upgrade binary the packages on Freebsd to the latest version. I have tried: *portupgrade -PP -a *portmaster -PP -a *pkg_update All fail miserably and totally and have left the system in an unuseable state. For the benefit of new readers David's question tend to take the form: I'm doing this the hard way, I'm refusing to compromise, and yet it still isn't working. I updated from ports yesterday and it did just work. If you dropped at least one of the -P flags, you should have less trouble. If you need binary packages for a production server, then build your own. Why can't FreeBSD just make the package system just work. Right after installing FreeBSD I should be able to type a single command such as update_packages and it should update all packages on the system, Why would you need to update packages after a fresh install? It's better not to install any stale packages in the first place. Why not? Why is something so simple so difficult and impossible? Ubuntu can do it, why not FreeBSD? Ubuntu does pretty much nothing but build packages from third-party software that's either portable or Linux-centric. A lot of it is inherited from Debian, it has a comparatively huge user-base, and financial backing from a commercial company. Why cant FreeBSD Just make the package upgrades work. You aren't telling us anything new here, *prebuilt* binary package are a second-class way of updating on FreeBSD. Packages pretty much have to be built for current and stable development branches for testing purposes. They are built against a constantly changing ports tree with variable lag which isn't ideal. Making it work like Ubuntu would need a lot more hardware and a lot more work from port maintainers to support branching the ports tree. At the moment there aren't really enough to maintain one tree. ___ 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: Unable to upgrade packages on FreeBSD
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 00:02:44 +0100 Bas Smeelen b.smee...@ose.nl wrote: On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:04:56 -0500 David Jackson djackson...@gmail.com wrote: To put it bluntly It's the users fault from my own experience Apple: just fsck off Mcrsft and Oracle and whom they have swallowed so far: just pay enough bucks, it's still your fault wait for the next update Ubuntu: just be rude on the mail-lists, wait for the next update or get involved FreeBSD: you could have known, RTFM! or get involved it's just as easy with the FM Netherlands: Bowmore Islay and others others are fore sale this week :) Damn laptop is still compiling Would be nice if there were stills compiling something else Cheers Disclaimer: http://www.ose.nl/email ___ 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: Unable to upgrade packages on FreeBSD
On 30/01/2012 22:04, David Jackson wrote: Binary packages are a big time saver and are more efficient. Yes, definitely -- this is true for many use cases. Not all by any means, but enough that binary packages are a must-have. It should be easy for FreeBSD to make it easy to install the most recent versions of all binary packages, its beyond belief they cannot pull off such a simple ans straight forward, and basic part of any OS. Now this I dispute absolutely. Whatever gave you the idea that generating and maintaining an archive of binary packages was at all simple and straight forward? It is most emphatically neither of those things. Firstly there's a matter of the scale of the job -- the ports contains around 23,000 different software packages. That's pretty respectable compared to most Linux distributions, remembering that there are several hundred packages' worth of stuff in the base system which would have to be packaged in a comparable Linux system. Most of those software packages are under active development, and virtually none of them are prepared to alter their release schedules one iota to suit FreeBSD. Just keeping that collection current is a huge task, let alone trying to maintain and improve the system used to do it. Then there's the small matter of compiling all that software to produce the binary packages. At the moment there are 3 different major OS versions supported across two Tier-1 architectures (i386, amd64 -- everything is expected to work on Tier-1) and four Tier-2 architectures (ia64, sparc64, powerpc, pc98 -- which should be supported for package building, but only on a 'best efforts' basis) plus maybe 3 or 4 other experimental architectures like arm and mips which have the potential to become very important in the future as they are the basis of a lot of embedded computing devices. And people have the temerity to complain if updates aren't available online within a few days! To support all that takes some pretty impressive computing power spread over three different data centers (I believe), all of which has been *donated* to the FreeBSD project, and all of the power, cooling, bandwidth, maintenance and other ongoing hosting costs are similarly supplied by donation. Not to mention a hard-core of about 20 key ports committers, plus maybe a hundred-odd other committers taking a more peripheral role, and some 4,000 other volunteers that do the work of maintaining everything. All of this elides one of the insanely great features of the ports -- which is how configurable and adaptable they are. The trouble is, the design of the ports really does work best for compiling from source. There is functionality there which is somewhere between incredibly difficult and simply impossible to push up to a set of pre-compiled binary packages. (Which, by the way, is a feature common to all binary packaging systems: you always get whatever someone else thought was a good idea at the time.) The ports really are one of FreeBSD's crown jewels, and as a system for compiling software from source and installing and maintaining the results it has few peers. It is certainly true that FreeBSD's binary package management could be better. Binary package management under FreeBSD has always been seen as bit of a second choice compared to ports, and consequently it has not had the same sort of development effort put into it. Until recently, that is. We have literally just had the announcement of the beta test version of the new next-generation binary packaging system on the freebsd-ports@... list earlier today. Don't get too excited though -- it will be months at the very least before pkgng goes into anything like production. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate JID: matt...@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Unable to upgrade packages on FreeBSD
On 2012.01.30 18:40, David Jackson wrote: Perhaps that is because the people who want to use packages have given up on FreeBSD. WTF?!? hint: I'm standing right beside you as you're saying this. Steve ___ 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: Unable to upgrade packages on FreeBSD
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 11:49:46PM +0100, Polytropon wrote: Binary packages are a big time saver and are more efficient. More efficient? Depends. In regards of installation, they're often faster. In regards of spped during operation... well, depends. :-) The binary packages are compiled from the ports sources with the maintainer's default options. Those options might not perform optimal on _every_ imaginable system. The defaults may also pull in a lot of stuff that you don't need. E.g, the math/gnuplot port pulls in pdflib, teTeX and wxWidgets (among other things)! That is quite heavy for a program for making graphs. Pdflib is restricted, and gnuplot has a perfectly working pdf output when the cairo library is used (which is also the default). It also has X11 output without wxWidgets, and TeX support is only really interesting for TeX users. That's not to criticize the maintainer, who presumably had good reason to choose these defaults, but to illustrate a problem. Just consider X: With or without HAL? With which drivers? Without! ;-) The reason that FreeBSD has a smaller user base is because it has a dysfunctional package system and it is hard to upgrade package to the most recent version, making FreeBSD more difficult to use/ I doubt that is the main reason. Maybe for novice desktop users, but those don't seem to be the majority or even a large part of the userbase. I do not agree with this statement. The user base of FreeBSD consists of a major amount of people who do not use the binary packages, as it seems, because ports work well for them. Agreed. But doing a workable package system is not difficult, it something that FreeBSD should be easily able to make it easy to have a way to upgrade packages to most recent versions out of box anbd in an error free and reliable way. There is a saying in engineering that everything is easy for the person who doesn't have to do it. Roland -- R.F.Smith http://www.xs4all.nl/~rsmith/ [plain text _non-HTML_ PGP/GnuPG encrypted/signed email much appreciated] pgp: 1A2B 477F 9970 BA3C 2914 B7CE 1277 EFB0 C321 A725 (KeyID: C321A725) pgpY06zzS5rDU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Unable to upgrade packages on FreeBSD
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 03:28:28PM -0700, Chad Perrin wrote: You talk a lot about how easy it is to maintain a binary package system. I would like you to convince me that it is easy, keeping in mind that it should remain compatible with the ports system. I am willing to be convinced. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] Oh come on, guys. David is the same person who said that FreeBSD was poorly documented. http://osdir.com/ml/freebsd-questions/2011-12/msg00684.html I really hate throwing around the 'T' word, but I'm starting to wonder. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt a bit longer. David, it's increasingly clear that FreeBSD is not going to fit your needs. If, for some reason, you are interested in the FreeBSD kernel, but binary packages, consider GNU/kFreeBSD. ___ 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: Unable to upgrade packages on FreeBSD
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 18:40:50 -0500, David Jackson wrote: On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Polytropon free...@edvax.de wrote: On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:04:56 -0500, David Jackson wrote: I wish to use binary packages and I specifically do not want to compile anything, it tends to take far too long to compile programs and would rather install some packages and have it all work right away. That's often true, especially when you're low on resources (CPU speed, disk, RAM). Binary packages are a big time saver and are more efficient. More efficient? Depends. In regards of installation, they're often faster. In regards of spped during operation... well, depends. :-) The binary packages are compiled from the ports sources with the maintainer's default options. Those options might not perform optimal on _every_ imaginable system. That's why compiling from source can make programs run faster when certain optimizations (e. g. specific CFLAGS, selection of CPU at compile time) are applied. Also functionality may increase as the default options may leave something out. A common example is mplayer: When compiled, it can have much more functionality and can even work wonders on old systems. The binary package doesn't give you that. That is true. Well, unless is a problem with cross CPU compatability, all available options should be compiled in by default. Mplayer (or it was some video players) has a huge number of display targets for instance, they can be runtime selected so support for all of them can be compiled in my default and the user can then select which one to use at runtime. I have used video player where you can choose between OpenGL, plain X11, Xvideo, and many other display options and I actually liked having these kinds of runtime choices. It's not just the output drivers, it's also the codecs. There's a sheer plethora of them, and there are basically three kinds of users: a) I only install the codecs where I have the corresponding files to play; I don't want any other codecs. b) I want all the codecs, so no matter what file I get, I can play it without further installation. c) I'm frightened because I live in a country where playing MP3 is forbidden by law, so I better not install anything that could make my elected government suspicious and send me a federal trojan. :-) Okay, two kinds of users. In addition to the codecs, there's another thing that mplayer can be selected upon compile time: if to include mencoder. Further stuff includes gmplayer and gmencoder and the skins for those programs. Regarding CPU feature use, it seems that WITHOUT_RUNTIME_CPUDETECTION (or what the option was called like) in combination with over-optimized CFLAGS and CPUTYPE create a faster binary, especially on older systems. A package for these programs can be provided and if a user needs a compile time option they can then spot compile them as needed. The default options (which the maintainer chooses) do not meet any of the two kinds of users mentioned above. In fact, I would call the default mplayer partially optimal because it's not the full thing and also not the minimal thing. Other things to keep in mind are language settings. One example is OpenOffice which needs to have the language setting at compile time, especially if you're not using the english language. You could compile a version of that for each language and I think thats what Ubuntu does, or, just compile maybe top 1 or 2 most commonly used language version and then other versions could be user compiled. There are, I think... at least 10 languages available, and combine this with Gnome, KDE and CUPS support OFF or ON, and you have 10*2*2*2 = 80 packages, and still no scheme to name them. :-) Finally, there may be licensing restrictions that forbid the distribution in binary form, or even the distribution through the FreeBSD system. Traditional Java may be seen as an example. This is rare, but it happens. Most programs dont have this problem. a few programs must be compiled like this, it is a lot easier to compile that handful of programs for me than it is to compile the entire system. I fully agree. If I remember correctly, mpg123 has been such a program, but compiling that is nothing compared to KDE. And with the shrinking importance of Java... :-) It should be easy for FreeBSD to make it easy to install the most recent versions of all binary packages, its beyond belief they cannot pull off such a simple ans straight forward, and basic part of any OS. Again, it depends. The options maintainers define as the default are typically okay for the build clusters that process them - they create the binary packages from the ports tree. At some occassions, options and dependencies can take into account things that are already installed, e. g. foo uses bar if bar is installed, but if it's not
Re: Unable to upgrade packages on FreeBSD
On 1/30/2012 6:13 PM, freebsd-lists-e...@erikosterholm.org wrote: On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 03:28:28PM -0700, Chad Perrin wrote: You talk a lot about how easy it is to maintain a binary package system. I would like you to convince me that it is easy, keeping in mind that it should remain compatible with the ports system. I am willing to be convinced. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] Oh come on, guys. David is the same person who said that FreeBSD was poorly documented. http://osdir.com/ml/freebsd-questions/2011-12/msg00684.html I really hate throwing around the 'T' word, but I'm starting to wonder. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt a bit longer. David, it's increasingly clear that FreeBSD is not going to fit your needs. If, for some reason, you are interested in the FreeBSD kernel, but binary packages, consider GNU/kFreeBSD. I'm finding this conversation very amusing. After playing with I don't know how many Linux distributions since the mid-90's, and running into the same problem of things breaking after updating binary packages, I moved to FreeBSD around 5.0 for my web server. Since that time, I've forced to do one reinstall due to a hardware failure, somewhere around 7.0. I am now running 8.2. After going through I can't remember how many upgrades and updates, I've only had a couple of minor issues over the years (most were resolved after reading Updating after the fact ;-) ). I'll give up the time savings of binary packages vs. the dependability of compiling stuff myself any day. Greg Groth ___ 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
