> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Oct 31 00:44:12 2007 > > >> From: "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > [...] > >> Actually, so far this month, they've gone up 0.3% (and its only middle of > >> month) ... it does fluctuate from month to month ... > >> > > > > Just out of curiosity, on what criteria do you clean up your list? Maybe > > you're cleaning it up too often, no? > > Clean up our list?
Well, since the numbers go down I assumed you have some periodic cleanup of the list of hosts reporting... If you're showing only the number of hosts reported on a given month, it's the same as a monthly cleanup. Since hosts report monthly, wouldn't it be better to report the number of hosts which reported in the last two or three months? Otherwise, if they fail to report for some conjunctural reason, say due to maintenance, the numbers will decrease falsely. [...] > There are actually other ports that are interactive in nature, and more often > then bsdstats ... install postfix sometime, and then upgrade it? Every time > you upgrade it, it will ask you if you want to enable it ... That's nasty... Looks like I was lucky when I chose to go with sendmail. > > When we, users, see a port changing, we do not know if it is only the > > install > > which changed or the program behaviour which changed. > > Certainly the install has changed behaviour, and that is troublesome for > > portupgrades done in batch. > > Why? There has only been one time where a change should have affected > portupgrade, and that was when we added the /etc/rc.conf interactive ... > being > that, it *should* be totally transparent ... > [...] > There are only two times it should *ever* have prompted ppl ... on initial > *manual* install, and, if they installed before the /etc/rc.conf changes, on > a > portupgrade after that ... beyond that, it should be more transparent then > installing postfix ... > > If you do find a condition where you are being 'held up' on a portupgrade, do > please let me know, as it shouldn't happen ... I'm sorry. It really must have been my memory of the early days of bsdstats, in which it changed a bit frequently and then the rc.conf changes. Memory is often unfair. Anyway, I just portupgraded bsdstats and it asked... Well, you see, I keep all my settings in rc.conf.local, because nobody is supposed to change that automatically, and this way I can keep rc.conf.local versioned on my svn repository for configuration files... So, I usually keep rc.conf clean. The pkg-install asks simply because the line is not on rc.conf. Well... there isn't a one-size-fits-all, I understand. There's lots of other stuff which makes portupgrades less batchable, the yes/no thing is not the only one and it's a problem which I can easily go around, now that I know the behaviour to expect. Worse problems for portupgrades are managing WITH_ options for all ports... It's easier in gentoo (also has downsides...) Thank you for looking through my perspective. I wish people were so attentive on the other higher volume mailing lists. There's at least one FreeBSD missing from your list, Gentoo/FreeBSD. I'll try to get more people reporting. Only 10 in Portugal? What a shame... 2 are mine... I know more FreeBSD hosts than that... Greetings, Miguel Ramos _______________________________________________ freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-advocacy To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"