John Marino wrote: > On 2/15/2016 9:40 PM, Michelle Sullivan wrote: > >> Yeah, I'd agree with this... except... >> >> pkg_* tools don't exist on 10.x only pkgng... that makes it base os >> thing.. even if it's downloaded in/via ports.. >> >> So sorry don't claim it's only part of the ports system, because whilst >> it maybe built and administered there, the tools it replaced were >> removed from the base OS at the very beginning of 10.x... >> > > What stopped you from installing pkg_* tools from the ports tree on > 10.x? Which port, I wasn't even aware the pkg_* tools where there? Not forgetting they wouldn't actually work because the ports tree actively installs and uses pkg (no matter what options you have) so you're screwed regardless.
> You're just talking about them being removed from base, but you > weren't prohibited from using the tools until they were removed from the > ports tree (and then you could have just frozen the tree while they were > still present) > Nice idea except there were a slew of vulnerabilities (notable openssl IIRC) which had to be patched... and IIRC it wasn't even back ported to the quarterly.. I know I asked for several patches to be put into the quarterly and they never were (and one of those patches was on a port I maintained.) > Plus now you're in a weird place where you can freely migrate to the > latest release (10.x) but can't freely migrate package tools? > Sorry? pre 8.4 pkg_* only. 8.4 + 9.x pkg_* or pkgng - user choice. 10.x pkgng only. Seems to be a good path to get people to switch without the pain. > Michelle, it's seriously very weak to say ports are tied to releases > because something moved out of base. Stuff moves out of base all the > time (and actually not fast enough). > Wasn't the point I was making, but people will jump on that to give weight to their argument. I was supporting someone else's notion that it would have been a lot more sensible and painless had it been done ... (eg like I suggested above) ... however it wasn't.. arbitrary date set... That said, you cannot deny.. 10.x didn't have working pkg_* tools (as in usable - because bapt (and others) made sure there were so many version checks so if you were on 10.x the ports tree would not use pkg_* tools even if you went to the source and compiled them like I did... seems to me like they had already chosen to go the way I suggested above, but too many people stayed clear of 10.0 so they forced the issue on everyone else... Here's the fact: I run configure and my systems, not some random wheeny that wants me to debug their software. I know the 'wheeny' is friends with people on here.. and a lot more respected by many than I ever will be when it comes to this mailing list, but I really don't care, I say it how it is, you may agree or disagree with me, I will respect you if you do, however you will never change my mind nor will I just shut up and go away whilst I have a single box affected (which means until they are all migrated.) Michelle -- Michelle Sullivan http://www.mhix.org/ _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"