Re: Use of newest version number such as 10.0 instead of current
On Friday, November 11, 2011 07:29:46 AM Mehmet Erol Sanliturk wrote: -(snipped stuff)- This is preventing testing and / or using efforts . I know , it is possible to rename local link names , but everyone is not so much knowledgeable . Thank you very much . Mehmet Erol Sanliturk Quite honestly, if someone isn't that knowledgeable, then they probably shouldn't be running current. In fact, the handbook even states that. I don't really see an issue here. -current is a bleeding edge development release, that must be built from source, and SHOULD always point to the latest source code. If you are using pkg_add -r pkgname to install software, on anything but release versions, you should expect breakage. If you do not wish to build from source, then you should probably stick to release versions. Chuck Burns ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Use of newest version number such as 10.0 instead of current
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 8:04 AM, Chuck Burns brea...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, November 11, 2011 07:29:46 AM Mehmet Erol Sanliturk wrote: -(snipped stuff)- This is preventing testing and / or using efforts . I know , it is possible to rename local link names , but everyone is not so much knowledgeable . Thank you very much . Mehmet Erol Sanliturk Quite honestly, if someone isn't that knowledgeable, then they probably shouldn't be running current. In fact, the handbook even states that. I don't really see an issue here. -current is a bleeding edge development release, that must be built from source, and SHOULD always point to the latest source code. My sentence is NOT about Current , but 9.0 RC1 . Perhaps , you will NOT say , if a person is NOT knowledgeable , he should NOT use 9.0 RC1 . If you are using pkg_add -r pkgname to install software, on anything but release versions, you should expect breakage. If you do not wish to build from source, then you should probably stick to release versions. Chuck Burns Up to now , my most disappointed situation is that , there is NO any tendency to lower required expertise level to use FreeBSD . Such an approach is confining FreeBSD to a small number of elite users when compared to millions of Linux users let alone hundred millions of some other operating systems which they are approaching to billions when version users are summed in spite of paying money also . Thank you very much . Mehmet Erol Sanliturk ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Use of newest version number such as 10.0 instead of current
On Friday, November 11, 2011 08:17:52 AM you wrote: -snip- My sentence is NOT about Current , but 9.0 RC1 . Perhaps , you will NOT say , if a person is NOT knowledgeable , he should NOT use 9.0 RC1 . If you use a proper RC, then pkg_add will work until a new RC, and since there is no binary upgrade path for anything other than releases, you will need to reinstall, with the newly released RC. -snip- Up to now , my most disappointed situation is that , there is NO any tendency to lower required expertise level to use FreeBSD . Such an approach is confining FreeBSD to a small number of elite users when compared to millions of Linux users let alone hundred millions of some other operating systems which they are approaching to billions when version users are summed in spite of paying money also . GhostBSD, PCBSD are two options for lower expertise and, as such, are billed as desktop versions of FreeBSD. FreeBSD itself (as well as the other BSDs) is a minimalistic OS, where you can build your own system, making it either into a server, workstation, or even into a desktop system if you so desire. If you want something with point-n-click ease of use, go use one of the two desktop-oriented versions. Both GhostBSD, and PCBSD are just a desktop environment built on top of FreeBSD. PCBSD even has a 9.0 RC out now as well, if you're into testing. PCBSD uses the kde environment, and GhostBSD uses the gnome 2.32 environment. If you want something else, feel free to create your own. There is nothing in the BSD license that prevents you from doing that. Instead of complaining that SOMEONE ELSE should do something that YOU want done, why not just do it yourself. In other words, put up, or shut up. :) Chuck Burns ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Use of newest version number such as 10.0 instead of current
Chuck Burns wrote: On Friday, November 11, 2011 08:17:52 AM you wrote: -snip- My sentence is NOT about Current , but 9.0 RC1 . Perhaps , you will NOT say , if a person is NOT knowledgeable , he should NOT use 9.0 RC1 . If you use a proper RC, then pkg_add will work until a new RC, and since there is no binary upgrade path for anything other than releases, you will need to reinstall, with the newly released RC. You can use freebsd-update for RC upgrades too! -snip- Up to now , my most disappointed situation is that , there is NO any tendency to lower required expertise level to use FreeBSD . Such an approach is confining FreeBSD to a small number of elite users when compared to millions of Linux users let alone hundred millions of some other operating systems which they are approaching to billions when version users are summed in spite of paying money also . GhostBSD, PCBSD are two options for lower expertise and, as such, are billed as desktop versions of FreeBSD. FreeBSD itself (as well as the other BSDs) is a minimalistic OS, where you can build your own system, making it either into a server, workstation, or even into a desktop system if you so desire. If you want something with point-n-click ease of use, go use one of the two desktop-oriented versions. Both GhostBSD, and PCBSD are just a desktop environment built on top of FreeBSD. PCBSD even has a 9.0 RC out now as well, if you're into testing. PCBSD uses the kde environment, and GhostBSD uses the gnome 2.32 environment. If you want something else, feel free to create your own. There is nothing in the BSD license that prevents you from doing that. Instead of complaining that SOMEONE ELSE should do something that YOU want done, why not just do it yourself. In other words, put up, or shut up. :) Really, this is not a proper worded answer to someone who just tried to request some more friendliness to new users and increase our user base. It doesn't metter if there are some other freebsd based projects. FreeBSD it-self has a problem - fewer users = fewer manufacturers will support FreeBSD (drivers). Miroslav Lachman ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Use of newest version number such as 10.0 instead of current
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Miroslav Lachman 000.f...@quip.cz wrote: Chuck Burns wrote: On Friday, November 11, 2011 08:17:52 AM you wrote: -snip- My sentence is NOT about Current , but 9.0 RC1 . Perhaps , you will NOT say , if a person is NOT knowledgeable , he should NOT use 9.0 RC1 . If you use a proper RC, then pkg_add will work until a new RC, and since there is no binary upgrade path for anything other than releases, you will need to reinstall, with the newly released RC. You can use freebsd-update for RC upgrades too! -snip- Up to now , my most disappointed situation is that , there is NO any tendency to lower required expertise level to use FreeBSD . Such an approach is confining FreeBSD to a small number of elite users when compared to millions of Linux users let alone hundred millions of some other operating systems which they are approaching to billions when version users are summed in spite of paying money also . GhostBSD, PCBSD are two options for lower expertise and, as such, are billed as desktop versions of FreeBSD. FreeBSD itself (as well as the other BSDs) is a minimalistic OS, where you can build your own system, making it either into a server, workstation, or even into a desktop system if you so desire. If you want something with point-n-click ease of use, go use one of the two desktop-oriented versions. Both GhostBSD, and PCBSD are just a desktop environment built on top of FreeBSD. PCBSD even has a 9.0 RC out now as well, if you're into testing. PCBSD uses the kde environment, and GhostBSD uses the gnome 2.32 environment. If you want something else, feel free to create your own. There is nothing in the BSD license that prevents you from doing that. Instead of complaining that SOMEONE ELSE should do something that YOU want done, why not just do it yourself. In other words, put up, or shut up. :) Really, this is not a proper worded answer to someone who just tried to request some more friendliness to new users and increase our user base. It doesn't metter if there are some other freebsd based projects. FreeBSD it-self has a problem - fewer users = fewer manufacturers will support FreeBSD (drivers). Miroslav Lachman ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org I agree 100%. The more people follow current the better releases we will have in the future. Sure current in not for the beginner, you will need to be able to compile world and kernel and produce debug symbols. That is expected. But maybe we should keep an open mind into ideas and not condemn them immediately. -- George Kontostanos aisecure.net ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Use of newest version number such as 10.0 instead of current
George Kontostanos schreef: On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Miroslav Lachman000.f...@quip.cz wrote: Chuck Burns wrote: On Friday, November 11, 2011 08:17:52 AM you wrote: -snip- My sentence is NOT about Current , but 9.0 RC1 . Perhaps , you will NOT say , if a person is NOT knowledgeable , he should NOT use 9.0 RC1 . If you use a proper RC, then pkg_add will work until a new RC, and since there is no binary upgrade path for anything other than releases, you will need to reinstall, with the newly released RC. You can use freebsd-update for RC upgrades too! -snip- Up to now , my most disappointed situation is that , there is NO any tendency to lower required expertise level to use FreeBSD . Such an approach is confining FreeBSD to a small number of elite users when compared to millions of Linux users let alone hundred millions of some other operating systems which they are approaching to billions when version users are summed in spite of paying money also . GhostBSD, PCBSD are two options for lower expertise and, as such, are billed as desktop versions of FreeBSD. FreeBSD itself (as well as the other BSDs) is a minimalistic OS, where you can build your own system, making it either into a server, workstation, or even into a desktop system if you so desire. If you want something with point-n-click ease of use, go use one of the two desktop-oriented versions. Both GhostBSD, and PCBSD are just a desktop environment built on top of FreeBSD. PCBSD even has a 9.0 RC out now as well, if you're into testing. PCBSD uses the kde environment, and GhostBSD uses the gnome 2.32 environment. If you want something else, feel free to create your own. There is nothing in the BSD license that prevents you from doing that. Instead of complaining that SOMEONE ELSE should do something that YOU want done, why not just do it yourself. In other words, put up, or shut up. :) Really, this is not a proper worded answer to someone who just tried to request some more friendliness to new users and increase our user base. It doesn't metter if there are some other freebsd based projects. FreeBSD it-self has a problem - fewer users = fewer manufacturers will support FreeBSD (drivers). Miroslav Lachman ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org I agree 100%. The more people follow current the better releases we will have in the future. Sure current in not for the beginner, you will need to be able to compile world and kernel and produce debug symbols. That is expected. But maybe we should keep an open mind into ideas and not condemn them immediately. If FreeBSD starts using numbers for HEAD/CURRENT, i think a lot of users would find them selves in a situation that they download version 10 in this case and that they are using a develepment version instead of a real release version. So FreeBSD will get more frustrated users, who need to download the latest release again and so on. Keeping the name more seperated from the normal numbering prevents this more or less. Gr Johan Hendriks ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Use of newest version number such as 10.0 instead of current
If FreeBSD starts using numbers for HEAD/CURRENT, i think a lot of users would find them selves in a situation that they download version 10 in this case and that they are using a develepment version instead of a real release version. Assuming there will be link from main page - probably yes. But if from official site they can get only RELEASE, and in some deep dark page link to current - they will not run into this. So FreeBSD will get more frustrated users, who need to download the latest release again and so on. Keeping the name more seperated from the normal numbering prevents this more or less. Hm, what's the problem to name development ISO's differently? Like, 10-CURRENT-UNSTABLE-*.iso VS 9-RELEASE.ISO So even very novice user will think twice before downloading. Is there any reason why ISOs can't be named differently from svn tag/branch? I don't see this. IMHO, this must have been done a lot of time ago. But, I may not know some constraints/restrictions/rules of development process, maybe HEAD is really necessary. I think this is more question to release engineering team than to current. Gr Johan Hendriks ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org -- Regards, Alexander Yerenkow ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Use of newest version number such as 10.0 instead of current
On Fri, 11 Nov 2011, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk wrote: Dear all , Instead of using Current and then renaming everything for a new version number , is it not possible to use the newest version number in place of Current when it is branched . Such a change will prevent unnecessary renaming problems . For everyone , it i very easy to understand that 10.0 is the latest , therefore the current one . The current may be used as a symbolic link to the newest version number , such as used by Debian . For example , for FreeBSD 9.0 RC1 , the ports directory name was ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/amd64/packages-9-current/Latest/ which is NOT available now , and pkg_add -r * is giving error about directory not found . This is preventing testing and / or using efforts . I know , it is possible to rename local link names , but everyone is not so much knowledgeable . I'm not sure I understand your proposal. In a month (er, two. well, maybe three) when 9.0 is released, do you propose that the svn HEAD be called: (a) 10.0 (b) 9-CURRENT (c) CURRENT (d) something else I do not realy care for either (a) or (b), since (a) would imply that the version is not changing, even as incompatible KBI/ABI changes are made. Likewise for (b), once the KBI/ABI changes, HEAD is decidedly no longer a form of '9'. -Ben Kaduk ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Use of newest version number such as 10.0 instead of current
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Benjamin Kaduk ka...@mit.edu wrote: On Fri, 11 Nov 2011, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk wrote: Dear all , Instead of using Current and then renaming everything for a new version number , is it not possible to use the newest version number in place of Current when it is branched . Such a change will prevent unnecessary renaming problems . For everyone , it i very easy to understand that 10.0 is the latest , therefore the current one . The current may be used as a symbolic link to the newest version number , such as used by Debian . For example , for FreeBSD 9.0 RC1 , the ports directory name was ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/amd64/packages-9-current/Latest/ which is NOT available now , and pkg_add -r * is giving error about directory not found . This is preventing testing and / or using efforts . I know , it is possible to rename local link names , but everyone is not so much knowledgeable . I'm not sure I understand your proposal. In a month (er, two. well, maybe three) when 9.0 is released, do you propose that the svn HEAD be called: (a) 10.0 (b) 9-CURRENT (c) CURRENT (d) something else I do not realy care for either (a) or (b), since (a) would imply that the version is not changing, even as incompatible KBI/ABI changes are made. Likewise for (b), once the KBI/ABI changes, HEAD is decidedly no longer a form of '9'. -Ben Kaduk During development of Version 9 , the name of directory was ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/amd64/packages-9-current/Latest/ During the 9.0 Release RC1 , the above name was used . Before releasing the 9.0 Release RC2 , the above has been changed . This change has broke the links in 9.0 Release RC1 . When we look at the ftp sites ( including mirrors ) all of them has changed . This naming structure is requiring re-structuring all of the directories over all ftp , and other sites . This is a wasted effort . Instead of doing this , a scheme like the following may be used : Instead of using /*-9-Current/ , use 10.0 for current . Assume our main directory is the following : ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ As next directory , use 8.1 , 8.2 , 9.0 for current . ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/8.1/ ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/8.2/ ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/9.0/ All of the directories , for example , ... ports ... release ... snapshot ... whatever is related to 8.2 , 9.0 will be under 8.2 or 9.0 , in such a way that nowhere else a directory with name , for example , 9.0 will exist ... For example : ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/9.0/amd64/ports/ ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/9.0/amd64/packages/ ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/9.0/amd64/snapshot/ ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/9.0/amd64/release/ ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/9.0/amd64/stable/ ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/9.0/amd64/doc/ ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/9.0/amd64/doc/handbook/ ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/9.0/amd64/doc/man/ Explain to the people that 9.0 is the Development branch , NOT for production use . A single sentence to learn . Another step may be to insert an explicit warning message into current motd file about Development status of 9.0 . When time comes to make a release of 9.0 , which a new development branch will be generated , take a copy of 9.0 , and rename this directory as 10.0 . By using suitable find/replace scripts , find all occurrences of 9.0 with strict match and replace them by 10.0 . After generating directory 10.0 , propagate it to mirrors . Please , notice that , NOTHING is changed for the 9.0 , and NOTHING is broken with respect to generation of a new branch , all over the world Then start to work on 10.0 ... Continue in that way . Apply the similar steps to 9.0 for 9.1 : Take a copy of 9.0 , rename it as 9.1 , ... Thank you very much . Mehmet Erol Sanliturk ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Use of newest version number such as 10.0 instead of current
On 11/11/2011 20:33, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk wrote: On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Benjamin Kaduk ka...@mit.edu wrote: On Fri, 11 Nov 2011, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk wrote: Dear all , Instead of using Current and then renaming everything for a new version number , is it not possible to use the newest version number in place of Current when it is branched . Such a change will prevent unnecessary renaming problems . For everyone , it i very easy to understand that 10.0 is the latest , therefore the current one . The current may be used as a symbolic link to the newest version number , such as used by Debian . For example , for FreeBSD 9.0 RC1 , the ports directory name was ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/amd64/packages-9-current/Latest/ which is NOT available now , and pkg_add -r * is giving error about directory not found . This is preventing testing and / or using efforts . I know , it is possible to rename local link names , but everyone is not so much knowledgeable . I'm not sure I understand your proposal. In a month (er, two. well, maybe three) when 9.0 is released, do you propose that the svn HEAD be called: (a) 10.0 (b) 9-CURRENT (c) CURRENT (d) something else I do not realy care for either (a) or (b), since (a) would imply that the version is not changing, even as incompatible KBI/ABI changes are made. Likewise for (b), once the KBI/ABI changes, HEAD is decidedly no longer a form of '9'. -Ben Kaduk During development of Version 9 , the name of directory was ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/amd64/packages-9-current/Latest/ During the 9.0 Release RC1 , the above name was used . Before releasing the 9.0 Release RC2 , the above has been changed . This change has broke the links in 9.0 Release RC1 . When we look at the ftp sites ( including mirrors ) all of them has changed . This naming structure is requiring re-structuring all of the directories over all ftp , and other sites . This is a wasted effort . Instead of doing this , a scheme like the following may be used : Instead of using /*-9-Current/ , use 10.0 for current . Assume our main directory is the following : ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ As next directory , use 8.1 , 8.2 , 9.0 for current . ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/8.1/ ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/8.2/ ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/9.0/ All of the directories , for example , ... ports ... release ... snapshot ... whatever is related to 8.2 , 9.0 will be under 8.2 or 9.0 , in such a way that nowhere else a directory with name , for example , 9.0 will exist ... For example : ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/9.0/amd64/ports/ ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/9.0/amd64/packages/ ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/9.0/amd64/snapshot/ ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/9.0/amd64/release/ ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/9.0/amd64/stable/ ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/9.0/amd64/doc/ ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/9.0/amd64/doc/handbook/ ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/9.0/amd64/doc/man/ Explain to the people that 9.0 is the Development branch , NOT for production use . A single sentence to learn . Another step may be to insert an explicit warning message into current motd file about Development status of 9.0 . When time comes to make a release of 9.0 , which a new development branch will be generated , take a copy of 9.0 , and rename this directory as 10.0 . By using suitable find/replace scripts , find all occurrences of 9.0 with strict match and replace them by 10.0 . After generating directory 10.0 , propagate it to mirrors . Please , notice that , NOTHING is changed for the 9.0 , and NOTHING is broken with respect to generation of a new branch , all over the world Then start to work on 10.0 ... Continue in that way . Apply the similar steps to 9.0 for 9.1 : Take a copy of 9.0 , rename it as 9.1 , ... Thank you very much . Mehmet Erol Sanliturk ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org Why do I have the feeling that this whole problem is simply a matter of r225757 not being MFC-ed to stable/9? http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/head/usr.sbin/pkg_install/add/main.c?r1=222035r2=225757 Cheers, Luchesar ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Use of newest version number such as 10.0 instead of current
On 11/11/2011 21:07, Luchesar V. ILIEV wrote: On 11/11/2011 20:33, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk wrote: On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Benjamin Kaduk ka...@mit.edu wrote: On Fri, 11 Nov 2011, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk wrote: Dear all , Instead of using Current and then renaming everything for a new version number , is it not possible to use the newest version number in place of Current when it is branched . Such a change will prevent unnecessary renaming problems . For everyone , it i very easy to understand that 10.0 is the latest , therefore the current one . The current may be used as a symbolic link to the newest version number , such as used by Debian . For example , for FreeBSD 9.0 RC1 , the ports directory name was ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/amd64/packages-9-current/Latest/ which is NOT available now , and pkg_add -r * is giving error about directory not found . This is preventing testing and / or using efforts . I know , it is possible to rename local link names , but everyone is not so much knowledgeable . I'm not sure I understand your proposal. In a month (er, two. well, maybe three) when 9.0 is released, do you propose that the svn HEAD be called: (a) 10.0 (b) 9-CURRENT (c) CURRENT (d) something else I do not realy care for either (a) or (b), since (a) would imply that the version is not changing, even as incompatible KBI/ABI changes are made. Likewise for (b), once the KBI/ABI changes, HEAD is decidedly no longer a form of '9'. -Ben Kaduk During development of Version 9 , the name of directory was ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/amd64/packages-9-current/Latest/ During the 9.0 Release RC1 , the above name was used . Before releasing the 9.0 Release RC2 , the above has been changed . This change has broke the links in 9.0 Release RC1 . When we look at the ftp sites ( including mirrors ) all of them has changed . This naming structure is requiring re-structuring all of the directories over all ftp , and other sites . This is a wasted effort . Instead of doing this , a scheme like the following may be used : Instead of using /*-9-Current/ , use 10.0 for current . Assume our main directory is the following : ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ As next directory , use 8.1 , 8.2 , 9.0 for current . ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/8.1/ ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/8.2/ ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/9.0/ All of the directories , for example , ... ports ... release ... snapshot ... whatever is related to 8.2 , 9.0 will be under 8.2 or 9.0 , in such a way that nowhere else a directory with name , for example , 9.0 will exist ... For example : ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/9.0/amd64/ports/ ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/9.0/amd64/packages/ ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/9.0/amd64/snapshot/ ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/9.0/amd64/release/ ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/9.0/amd64/stable/ ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/9.0/amd64/doc/ ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/9.0/amd64/doc/handbook/ ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/9.0/amd64/doc/man/ Explain to the people that 9.0 is the Development branch , NOT for production use . A single sentence to learn . Another step may be to insert an explicit warning message into current motd file about Development status of 9.0 . When time comes to make a release of 9.0 , which a new development branch will be generated , take a copy of 9.0 , and rename this directory as 10.0 . By using suitable find/replace scripts , find all occurrences of 9.0 with strict match and replace them by 10.0 . After generating directory 10.0 , propagate it to mirrors . Please , notice that , NOTHING is changed for the 9.0 , and NOTHING is broken with respect to generation of a new branch , all over the world Then start to work on 10.0 ... Continue in that way . Apply the similar steps to 9.0 for 9.1 : Take a copy of 9.0 , rename it as 9.1 , ... Thank you very much . Mehmet Erol Sanliturk ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org Why do I have the feeling that this whole problem is simply a matter of r225757 not being MFC-ed to stable/9? http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/head/usr.sbin/pkg_install/add/main.c?r1=222035r2=225757 Cheers, Luchesar I've filed a PR for this... http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=162490 Hopefully, I'm not getting it entirely wrong. :) Cheers, Luchesar P.S. The PR is not yet online. ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Use of newest version number such as 10.0 instead of current
On 11/11/2011 04:29, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk wrote: pkg_add -r * is giving error about directory not found . This is preventing testing and / or using efforts . I see your perspective on this, but package support for HEAD (N-current) is always done on a best effort basis, and is incredibly likely to be broken during a new major branch release cycle no matter what. Also, because HEAD is a rapidly moving target the preferred way to deal with ports is to compile the ports, not to use packages at all. Or, to use packages when they exist, but compile everything else. The PACKAGESITE environment variable can help with that. Your point that it should be easier is well taken, I think moreso for the RCs than for HEAD. There has been some discussion about how to update the logic for pkg_add, but I'm not sure that symlinks are going to be the answer. Doug -- We could put the whole Internet into a book. Too practical. Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/ ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Use of newest version number such as 10.0 instead of current
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 7:29 PM, Benjamin Kaduk ka...@mit.edu wrote: On Fri, 11 Nov 2011, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk wrote: Dear all , Instead of using Current and then renaming everything for a new version number , is it not possible to use the newest version number in place of Current when it is branched . Such a change will prevent unnecessary renaming problems . For everyone , it i very easy to understand that 10.0 is the latest , therefore the current one . The current may be used as a symbolic link to the newest version number , such as used by Debian . For example , for FreeBSD 9.0 RC1 , the ports directory name was ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/amd64/packages-9-current/Latest/ which is NOT available now , and pkg_add -r * is giving error about directory not found . This is preventing testing and / or using efforts . I know , it is possible to rename local link names , but everyone is not so much knowledgeable . I'm not sure I understand your proposal. In a month (er, two. well, maybe three) when 9.0 is released, do you propose that the svn HEAD be called: (a) 10.0 (b) 9-CURRENT (c) CURRENT (d) something else I do not realy care for either (a) or (b), since (a) would imply that the version is not changing, even as incompatible KBI/ABI changes are made. Likewise for (b), once the KBI/ABI changes, HEAD is decidedly no longer a form of '9'. -Ben Kaduk ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org I think he suggests a) 10 BTW I follow both stable and current lists. I have noticed that people still ask questions in current regarding 9-RC(*) problems. Maybe if it was clear that current is now 10 this would not happen. Cheers, -- George Kontostanos Aicom telecoms ltd http://www.barebsd.com ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Use of newest version number such as 10.0 instead of current
On 11/11/2011 14:23, George Kontostanos wrote: BTW I follow both stable and current lists. I have noticed that people still ask questions in current regarding 9-RC(*) problems. Maybe if it was clear that current is now 10 this would not happen. Actually up until the actual release we encourage users to ask about the new branch on -current, for a variety of reasons. -- We could put the whole Internet into a book. Too practical. Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/ ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
