On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 1:22 AM, David Chisnall
wrote:
> On 25 Apr 2016, at 06:48, Gerrit Kühn wrote:
> >
> >> Yes. It will be replaced by 'pkg upgrade' -- as far as I know, that's
> >> the plan for 11.0-RELEASE.
> >
> > Hm... I never had any troubles with freebsd-update, it always "just
> > wo
On 25 Apr 2016, at 06:48, Gerrit Kühn wrote:
>
>> Yes. It will be replaced by 'pkg upgrade' -- as far as I know, that's
>> the plan for 11.0-RELEASE.
>
> Hm... I never had any troubles with freebsd-update, it always "just
> worked" for me. OTOH, I remember having several issues with pkg, requir
On 25/04/2016 08:39, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
Gerrit Kühn wrote on 04/25/2016 07:48:
On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 18:52:32 +0100 Matthew Seaman
wrote about Re: why 100 packages are evil:
MS> > Is freebsd-update going away as result of the new packaging ?
Yes. It will be replaced by '
Gerrit Kühn wrote on 04/25/2016 07:48:
On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 18:52:32 +0100 Matthew Seaman
wrote about Re: why 100 packages are evil:
MS> > Is freebsd-update going away as result of the new packaging ?
Yes. It will be replaced by 'pkg upgrade' -- as far as I know, that
On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 18:52:32 +0100 Matthew Seaman
wrote about Re: why 100 packages are evil:
MS> > Is freebsd-update going away as result of the new packaging ?
> Yes. It will be replaced by 'pkg upgrade' -- as far as I know, that's
> the plan for 11.0-RELEASE.
Hm.
On 23/04/2016 17:19, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
> In message , Lyndon
> Neren
> berg writes:
>
>> With freebsd-update, an announcement comes out that says 'update'!. So we
>> do. Move from 10.2-p11 to 10.2-p12. There is a very clear track record
>> of why and how this happened.
>
>
In message , Lyndon Neren
berg writes:
>With freebsd-update, an announcement comes out that says 'update'!. So we
>do. Move from 10.2-p11 to 10.2-p12. There is a very clear track record
>of why and how this happened.
Is freebsd-update going away as result of the new packaging ?
--
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 08:41:06PM -0700, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
> But the dependency base will be huge.
Yet you fail to explain how.
> Right now I can count on a very limited set of dependencies for
> anything I ship as a 3rd party package.
How is this different than the existing model? What
Same as it is now for releases. Packages will be available for SAs/ENs.
There is no intention to change this model.
I get that. But the dependency base will be huge. Right now I can count on
a very limited set of dependencies for anything I ship as a 3rd party
package. Doing that for n>100 p
On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 03:21:38AM +, Glen Barber wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 08:17:15PM -0700, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
> > With freebsd-update, an announcement comes out that says 'update'!. So we
> > do. Move from 10.2-p11 to 10.2-p12. There is a very clear track record of
> > why and
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 08:17:15PM -0700, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
> With freebsd-update, an announcement comes out that says 'update'!. So we
> do. Move from 10.2-p11 to 10.2-p12. There is a very clear track record of
> why and how this happened.
>
> What will be the new update frequency with >
Here's a real example.
I have n Centos servers. Cron, once or twice a day, updates our local
cache of the yum repos. Then nagios comes along and flags 35 packages out
of date.
An hour later, management comes along asking questions about the security
implications of those packages. An hour l
12 matches
Mail list logo