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 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 model is much more convenient for users, > providing more up to date packages and no OS release upgrade hassle. > > 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. Since the kernel and userland > packages have different development cycles, there is no reason why there > has to be synchronization of the upgrading. > > Some here suggested PC-BSD, it was no better at all than FreeBSD, In fact > in its documentation it demanded a complete system reinstall just to > upgrade to a new kernel version. An OS that requires a user to reinstall > everything just to upgrade the kernel is not user friendly. It creates more > trouble and difficulty for users and ironically makes the system more user > unfriendly, and makes these users suffer due to the design faults of the > system, a user having to upgrade userland packages for a kernel upgrade is > a symptom of serious design faults and deficiencies. These two parts should > be able to be upgraded independently and a good system assures backwards > compatability support so older packages can run on a newer kernel. > > For now I have totally given up on FreeBSD, all I had with FreeBSD were > problems, big problems. The lack of smooth binary upgrades, and the poor > virtual box support made it very difficult to use. > _______________________________________________ > 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"
