> On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 01:12:17PM -0500, nixlists wrote:
> > The other problem, that gets mentioned is some people are forced to
> > run -current because some packages will only work with -current, and
> > backporting sucks for many reasons.
>
> Forgot to nitpick this one.
>
> *nobody* is *for
On Sat, Mar 06, 2010 at 02:26:25PM +0530, Siju George wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Peter Hessler wrote:
> >
> > (I'm also running dpb3 on my OpenBSD/loongson system, but that is just
> > for private use, and to find packages that fail to build ;) ).
> >
>
> loongson seems to be a ver
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Peter Hessler wrote:
>
> (I'm also running dpb3 on my OpenBSD/loongson system, but that is just
> for private use, and to find packages that fail to build ;) ).
>
loongson seems to be a very low end cpu system. what is the special
attraction towards it? :-)
thanks
On 2010 Mar 06 (Sat) at 14:26:25 +0530 (+0530), Siju George wrote:
:On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Peter Hessler wrote:
:>
:> (I'm also running dpb3 on my OpenBSD/loongson system, but that is just
:> for private use, and to find packages that fail to build ;) ).
:>
:
:loongson seems to be a very
On 2010 Mar 05 (Fri) at 12:36:04 -0800 (-0800), J.C. Roberts wrote:
:The thing is, you've kind mixed things up because you didn't understand
:the context. STeve was doing *more* than just running the -current
:snapshot and packages. He was getting into -HEAD branch to help espie@
:out with testing
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 01:12:17PM -0500, nixlists wrote:
> The other problem, that gets mentioned is some people are forced to
> run -current because some packages will only work with -current, and
> backporting sucks for many reasons.
Forgot to nitpick this one.
*nobody* is *forced* to run -cur
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 12:36:04PM -0800, J.C. Roberts wrote:
> Not many people have the bandwidth and stack of systems required to do
> distributed builds of the *ENTIRE* ports tree. None the less, great
> people doing bulk builds is how your packages get built for all the
> mirrors. At present, t
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 08:08:37PM +0100, Bret S. Lambert wrote:
> > Ok is that sarcasm, or are you for real?
>
> I have never seen espie@ in the same room as sarcasm, so I can only assume
> they are the same person.
If you're doing ports stuff, sarcasm is your best friend.
Ciao,
kili, s
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 13:12:17 -0500 nixlists wrote:
> Anyway, at least one person has this opinion:
>
> "Yes, a basic understanding, plus the understanding that you need to
> "catch" a set of commits completely. That requires some understanding
> of the code at some level. Fortunately messing th
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Bret S. Lambert wrote:
>> The other problem, that gets mentioned is some people are forced to
>> run -current because some packages will only work with -current, and
>> backporting sucks for many reasons.
>
> Unless you're running one of those, it doesn't affect you
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 01:12:17PM -0500, nixlists wrote:
> On 3/5/10, Marc Espie wrote:
[snippz0rz]
> > We're very far from lemmings-linux, aka debian, where very little
> > engineering
> > actually gets done, and where the whole development process relies on
> > hordes
> > of lemmings^Wus
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 01:12:17PM -0500, nixlists wrote:
> > We're very far from lemmings-linux, aka debian, where very little
> > engineering
> > actually gets done, and where the whole development process relies on
> > hordes
> > of lemmings^Wusers going over the cliff to actually get thing
On 3/5/10, Marc Espie wrote:
> Well, sometimes we fuck up -current.
>
> Not on purpose, but it happens.
>
> If you run into a broken snapshot, you may have to wait a few days until
> a new snapshot hits the mirrors, usually with everything fixed.
>
> ... and so, your system may be fucked for a
On 2010-3-5 7:24 PM, Marc Espie wrote:
> Well, sometimes we fuck up -current.
>
> Not on purpose, but it happens.
>
> If you run into a broken snapshot, you may have to wait a few days until
> a new snapshot hits the mirrors, usually with everything fixed.
>
> ... and so, your system may be fuck
Well, sometimes we fuck up -current.
Not on purpose, but it happens.
If you run into a broken snapshot, you may have to wait a few days until
a new snapshot hits the mirrors, usually with everything fixed.
... and so, your system may be fucked for a few days.
That said, we never get enough test
Giannis, thank you for your helpful answer.
--
Ron McDowell
San Antonio TX
Kapetanakis Giannis wrote:
On 05/03/10 01:33, Ron McDowell wrote:
Where does one find details of things like this?
If you mean about changes in -current,
I monitor these two
http://www.openbsd.org/faq/current.html
h
On 05/03/10 01:33, Ron McDowell wrote:
Where does one find details of things like this?
If you mean about changes in -current,
I monitor these two
http://www.openbsd.org/faq/current.html
http://www.openbsd.org/plus.html
Giannis
One doesn't find details like that because people doing this for fun
don't write lists of details like that.
> Where does one find details of things like this?
>
> > --had I paid more
> > attention, I would have seen that new stuff was added, which fixed the
> > particular problem I had.
Where does one find details of things like this?
--
Ron McDowell
San Antonio TX
STeve Andre' wrote:
--had I paid more
attention, I would have seen that new stuff was added, which fixed the
particular problem I had.
On Thursday 04 March 2010 15:30:25 Bret S. Lambert wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 03:12:35PM -0500, nixlists wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:28 PM, wrote:
> > > If you don't have a good understanding of things, I'd say you should
> >
> > By good understanding do you mean ability to read an
Why don't you try it by yourself what's appropriate for you? I started
with stable because I was scared from other systems that current is
something worse and less stable then stable version (even stable
version of those systems is something to be scared about). Now I'm
using for about two years or
On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 15:12 -0500, "nixlists" wrote:
> It seems the opinion on running current in production ranges from
> being overly optimistic to being very cautious. If running -current in
> production is only recommended for people who are intimately familiar
> with the internals, doesn't tha
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 03:12:35PM -0500, nixlists wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:28 PM, wrote:
> > If you don't have a good understanding of things, I'd say you should
>
> By good understanding do you mean ability to read and write system
> code, and intimate familiarity with *nix internals
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:28 PM, wrote:
> If you don't have a good understanding of things, I'd say you should
By good understanding do you mean ability to read and write system
code, and intimate familiarity with *nix internals?
...
> not follow -current on machines that are critical to you.
Quoting nixlists :
> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 11:58 AM, wrote:
>>> But both are related to downtime and data loss. I understand stability
>>> bugs are likely to pop-up more often with current, and this has been
>>> my experience. Weird freezes without panic that I did not have with
>>> release/sta
On 2010-3-4 6:44 PM, nixlists wrote:
> Anyway, I am still not clear where ...
'stable' refers to the APIs and ABIs. It also refers to the selection
of packages and libraries and their versions.
/Lars
Quoting nixlists :
> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Chris Bennett
> wrote:
>> You are talking about two separate issues.
>>
>> Stability is not related to security directly.
>> The two are intricately combined but not the same.
>
> But both are related to downtime and data loss. I understand st
On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 11:44 -0500, "nixlists" wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Chris Bennett
> wrote:
> > You are talking about two separate issues.
> >
> > Stability is not related to security directly.
> > The two are intricately combined but not the same.
>
> But both are related to do
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 11:58 AM, wrote:
>> But both are related to downtime and data loss. I understand stability
>> bugs are likely to pop-up more often with current, and this has been
>> my experience. Weird freezes without panic that I did not have with
>> release/stabe, and some pf-related pa
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Chris Bennett
wrote:
> You are talking about two separate issues.
>
> Stability is not related to security directly.
> The two are intricately combined but not the same.
But both are related to downtime and data loss. I understand stability
bugs are likely to pop-
nixlists wrote:
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Chris Bennett
wrote:
-current is typically safer by default since all those errata in release
versions are already fixed in -current snapshots. No patches, no builds.
just update to latest snapshots, other than time to update packages, maybe
1
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Chris Bennett
wrote:
> -current is typically safer by default since all those errata in release
> versions are already fixed in -current snapshots. No patches, no builds.
> just update to latest snapshots, other than time to update packages, maybe
> 10-15 minutes o
trustlevel-...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
--- On Thu, 4/3/10, Tomas Bodzar wrote:
From: Tomas Bodzar
Subject: Re: -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
To: trustlevel-...@yahoo.co.uk
Cc: misc@openbsd.org
Date: Thursday, 4 March, 2010, 14:37
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:52
PM
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 3:12 PM, wrote:
>
>
> --- On Thu, 4/3/10, Tomas Bodzar wrote:
>
>> From: Tomas Bodzar
>> Subject: Re: -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
>> To: trustlevel-...@yahoo.co.uk
>> Cc: misc@openbsd.org
>> Date: Thu
--- On Thu, 4/3/10, Tomas Bodzar wrote:
> From: Tomas Bodzar
> Subject: Re: -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
> To: trustlevel-...@yahoo.co.uk
> Cc: misc@openbsd.org
> Date: Thursday, 4 March, 2010, 14:37
> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:52
> PM,
> w
trustlevel-...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
I had read the faq many times before asking the question. I admit not just
beforehand. I wasn't specific enough about my thought processes and asked too
many questions at once, but thanks for all the insights.
I've decided to use release when available and switc
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:52 PM, wrote:
> I had read the faq many times before asking the question. I admit not just
> beforehand. I wasn't specific enough about my thought processes and asked too
> many questions at once, but thanks for all the insights.
>
> I've decided to use release when avai
I had read the faq many times before asking the question. I admit not just
beforehand. I wasn't specific enough about my thought processes and asked too
many questions at once, but thanks for all the insights.
I've decided to use release when available and switch to current as needed.
Out of inte
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Scott McEachern wrote:
>Manuel Giraud wrote:
>> Maybe I'll stick to -current too. But I'd like to give try staying
>> -stable for a while and I could still play with the new toys every 6
>> month anyway. I wonder why does the FAQ recommend -stable over -current?
>>
> From the
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 17:43:18 +0100 Manuel Giraud
wrote:
> "J.C. Roberts" writes:
>
> > There's a story I remember reading about an OpenBSD user from Japan
> > (possibly Mark Uemura?) who met an interesting fellow at a
> > conference who asked what operating system he was running on his
> > lapt
"J.C. Roberts" writes:
> There's a story I remember reading about an OpenBSD user from Japan
> (possibly Mark Uemura?) who met an interesting fellow at a conference
> who asked what operating system he was running on his laptop. The
> OpenBSD user proudly stated, "I'm running OpenBSD X.Y Stable,"
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 09:02 -0500, "Scott McEachern"
wrote:
> Manuel Giraud wrote:
> > I wasn't clear enough: by "new package", I meant "a package not
> > installed on my system yet" and not "the bleeding edge version of one
> > package".
> >
> >
> Ah ok, sorry, I misunderstood.
> > Maybe I'll st
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 13:21:47 +0100 Manuel Giraud
wrote:
> Scott McEachern writes:
>
> > Huh? Let me get this straight. You want to use a *new* package.
> > You have to use -current to get the new package. How do you figure
> > running -stable will help?
>
> I wasn't clear enough: by "new pa
Manuel Giraud wrote:
I wasn't clear enough: by "new package", I meant "a package not
installed on my system yet" and not "the bleeding edge version of one
package".
Ah ok, sorry, I misunderstood.
Maybe I'll stick to -current too. But I'd like to give try staying
-stable for a while and I co
Scott McEachern writes:
> Huh? Let me get this straight. You want to use a *new* package. You
> have to use -current to get the new package. How do you figure
> running -stable will help?
I wasn't clear enough: by "new package", I meant "a package not
installed on my system yet" and not "the
Manuel Giraud wrote:
Using -current, I sometimes have had to upgrade to the latest snapshot
just because I wanted to install some new package and bumped into an
error like "not good version of libc".
In fact, I thought that having a -release (and -stable) was a strength
of OpenBSD (if not why pu
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 09:36:31AM +0100, Manuel Giraud wrote:
> "J.C. Roberts" writes:
>
> > The short answer is painfully simple; if you're running OpenBSD as your
> > desktop/laptop and you have a clue, then run just -current.
> >
> > These days, the -stable branch still exists primarily due t
47 matches
Mail list logo
