Re: Re-starting daemons across upgrades? (was: Thank you (for making the ports less boring).)
Lev Serebryakov wrote: Hello, Łukasz. You wrote 16 сентября 2011 г., 22:17:58: were not recompiled). Updating ports should never turn off or restart service - thats my $0.02. I agree with that. It is not difficult to REstart service by hands. But stopping service is another story. Many ports/packages stop service on dinstall/pkg_delete, and as result, if port with service are upgraded in the middle of large upgrade session (and it is not always possible to upgrade services SEPARATELY, due to dependences), here is large window when old service is stopped, but new cannot be started yet. From my point of view, it is better to not stop the service by deinstall phase, if it is not started by install. If I do portmaster -a, deinstall of MySQL stops the mysql daemon and all dependent services are unavailable for a very long time - until all other packages are upgraded and administrator starts MySQL by hand. It can be hours. But I like the idea based on portupgrade AFTERINSTALL / (AFTERUPGRADE) - some kind of custom hooks, where user can define actions for specific packages / services. It can be restart in some cases, or write something to log, or send an e-mail, or print some user defined warning text about dependencies needed to be upgraded / restarted... and so on. Miroslav Lachman ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Re-starting daemons across upgrades? (was: Thank you (for making the ports less boring).)
W dniu 2011-09-16 20:25, Chris Rees pisze: > However, having services not restarted after an upgrade can leave you > with a) a vulnerable older service and b) a nasty shock when you > decide to reboot six months later and it breaks :) I know that I should restart service after update and I will do it, I promise :) But I like to do it when I'm prepared for it, not when monitoring system starts screaming about a down service ;) -- best regards, Lukasz Wasikowski ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Re-starting daemons across upgrades? (was: Thank you (for making the ports less boring).)
Hello, Łukasz. You wrote 16 сентября 2011 г., 22:17:58: > were not recompiled). Updating ports should never turn off or restart > service - thats my $0.02. I agree with that. It is not difficult to REstart service by hands. But stopping service is another story. Many ports/packages stop service on dinstall/pkg_delete, and as result, if port with service are upgraded in the middle of large upgrade session (and it is not always possible to upgrade services SEPARATELY, due to dependences), here is large window when old service is stopped, but new cannot be started yet. -- // Black Lion AKA Lev Serebryakov ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Re-starting daemons across upgrades? (was: Thank you (for making the ports less boring).)
2011/9/16 Łukasz Wąsikowski : > W dniu 2011-09-16 18:17, Eric pisze: > >> Just for ref regarding (c) on the portupgrade wiki page[1] it mentions using >> AFTERINSTALL in pkgtools.conf for doing automatic stop/start/restart. > > I'm using it for a long time on my personal box and it's not that great. > After some updates there is need to prepare the daemon - adjust > configuration for example. Automatic restart will do much harm in that > case. Another example: update when there's apache and php in new > versions, system has also eaccelerator and some pecl's installed. If php > was updated before apache, then apache restart via AFTERINSTALL will > leave you with not working www server (because eaccelerator and pecl's > were not recompiled). Updating ports should never turn off or restart > service - thats my $0.02. > I had a thought about implementing this in bsd.port.mk, but to tell the truth it would be better handled by your port manager of choice-- I can't find an option for portmaster, but I bet someone willing to send a working patch to dougb can earn themselves some brownie points. I would do it myself, but meh it doesn't upset me that much. However, having services not restarted after an upgrade can leave you with a) a vulnerable older service and b) a nasty shock when you decide to reboot six months later and it breaks :) Chris ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Re-starting daemons across upgrades? (was: Thank you (for making the ports less boring).)
W dniu 2011-09-16 18:17, Eric pisze: > Just for ref regarding (c) on the portupgrade wiki page[1] it mentions using > AFTERINSTALL in pkgtools.conf for doing automatic stop/start/restart. I'm using it for a long time on my personal box and it's not that great. After some updates there is need to prepare the daemon - adjust configuration for example. Automatic restart will do much harm in that case. Another example: update when there's apache and php in new versions, system has also eaccelerator and some pecl's installed. If php was updated before apache, then apache restart via AFTERINSTALL will leave you with not working www server (because eaccelerator and pecl's were not recompiled). Updating ports should never turn off or restart service - thats my $0.02. -- best regards, Lukasz Wasikowski ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Re-starting daemons across upgrades? (was: Thank you (for making the ports less boring).)
> We do not currently have a standard procedure for that, nor do we record > the necessary state -- perhaps we should just discuss, vote, and add a > paragraph to the porter's handbook. > > We also need to bring the authors (or volunteers) for the de-facto > standard upgrade tools into the loop. > > My thoughts: > > - give the user a choice to configure whether to restart services > > - optional: give the users a chance to configure this per-service > > - discuss whether we want/need to support this (a) in the framework that > we currently use, (b) only in pkgng, (c) in portmaster and portupgrade > where necessary. Just for ref regarding (c) on the portupgrade wiki page[1] it mentions using AFTERINSTALL in pkgtools.conf for doing automatic stop/start/restart. [1] http://wiki.freebsd.org/portupgrade ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re-starting daemons across upgrades? (was: Thank you (for making the ports less boring).)
Am 16.09.2011 11:51, schrieb Lev Serebryakov: > Hello, Freebsd-ports. > You wrote 16 сентября 2011 г., 0:28:07: > >>> Really? I thought it was supposed to be standard behaviour- the @stopdaemon >>> line in pkg-plist facilitates that. > >> While I totally understand why we do this, I have to say it's VERY >> VERY annoying behavior especially when one upgrading a remote system >> with multiple server daemon ports. One have to watch the whole >> process carefully and restart the daemon manually. > Yep, and even more annoyingly is that it is completely inconsistent: > some daemons are stopped, some not, etc. We do not currently have a standard procedure for that, nor do we record the necessary state -- perhaps we should just discuss, vote, and add a paragraph to the porter's handbook. We also need to bring the authors (or volunteers) for the de-facto standard upgrade tools into the loop. My thoughts: - give the user a choice to configure whether to restart services - optional: give the users a chance to configure this per-service - discuss whether we want/need to support this (a) in the framework that we currently use, (b) only in pkgng, (c) in portmaster and portupgrade where necessary. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Thank you (for making the ports less boring).
Hello, Freebsd-ports. You wrote 16 сентября 2011 г., 0:28:07: >> Really? I thought it was supposed to be standard behaviour- the @stopdaemon >> line in pkg-plist facilitates that. > While I totally understand why we do this, I have to say it's VERY > VERY annoying behavior especially when one upgrading a remote system > with multiple server daemon ports. One have to watch the whole > process carefully and restart the daemon manually. Yep, and even more annoyingly is that it is completely inconsistent: some daemons are stopped, some not, etc. -- // Black Lion AKA Lev Serebryakov ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
overlays (was: Re: Thank you (for making the ports less boring).)
Hi, > 3. Someone deleted port I like to use / I want my personal ports tree: > FreeBSD: I wish :/ > Gentoo: overlays works well. Now I'm really curios what magic device gentoo has. Once thing I most appreciate about FreeBSD is how flexible it is in precisely this manner. * if some port is removed or I just want an old version of some port I just use cvs sticky tags. That's the nice thing about having a repository with full history and even having it mirrored on my own hard disk[1]. * Of course, no one prevents me from installing my own ports. And this fits amazingly well, as dependencies are defined semantically (a certain library/binary/... has to be installed---not a particular port) * But, most importantly, /etc/make.conf is the device for proper overlays, that is, I have a way to modify a port without forking it. And I think that this is really nice that I can go my own way here while still benefiting from the good work of the maintainer. And I never had anything I wanted that I couldn't achieve by adding something like .if !empty(.CURDIR:M*/ports/foo/bar*) CFLAGS += ... EXTRA_PATCHES += /wherever/I/store/my/personal/patches.diff post-extract: # do something... pst-configure: # do something... post-patch: # do something ... pre-install: # do something... # and so on .endif to my /etc/make.conf. Could you please elaborate, which additional features gentoo's overlay system brings on top of that? Best regards, Klaus [1] I use CTM for that, but there is more than one way to do it. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Thank you (for making the ports less boring).
On 15 Sep 2011 21:28, "Xin LI" wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Chris Rees wrote: > > On 15 Sep 2011 20:52, "Matthias Andree" wrote: > >> > >> Am 15.09.2011 21:36, schrieb Łukasz Wąsikowski: > >> > >> > BTW: You hate having a software update break your software. I hate when > >> > software updates turn off services on my servers. That's another thing > >> > portage do better - update won't turn off any service. You are supposed > >> > to restart services manually after doing etc-update. Speaking of which - > >> > another good idea worth adopting. > >> > >> Few ports stop services when getting deinstalled/upgraded, so it may be > >> worth pinging the affected ports' maintainers about it. > > > > Really? I thought it was supposed to be standard behaviour- the @stopdaemon > > line in pkg-plist facilitates that. > > While I totally understand why we do this, I have to say it's VERY > VERY annoying behavior especially when one upgrading a remote system > with multiple server daemon ports. One have to watch the whole > process carefully and restart the daemon manually. > > As part of symmetry, I think a reasonable behavior should be at least, > if pkg_delete kills the daemon, pkg_add or make install should start > it, and the user can optionally disable this behavior. > Hm, for my todo list :) Chris ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Thank you (for making the ports less boring).
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Chris Rees wrote: > On 15 Sep 2011 20:52, "Matthias Andree" wrote: >> >> Am 15.09.2011 21:36, schrieb Łukasz Wąsikowski: >> >> > BTW: You hate having a software update break your software. I hate when >> > software updates turn off services on my servers. That's another thing >> > portage do better - update won't turn off any service. You are supposed >> > to restart services manually after doing etc-update. Speaking of which - >> > another good idea worth adopting. >> >> Few ports stop services when getting deinstalled/upgraded, so it may be >> worth pinging the affected ports' maintainers about it. > > Really? I thought it was supposed to be standard behaviour- the @stopdaemon > line in pkg-plist facilitates that. While I totally understand why we do this, I have to say it's VERY VERY annoying behavior especially when one upgrading a remote system with multiple server daemon ports. One have to watch the whole process carefully and restart the daemon manually. As part of symmetry, I think a reasonable behavior should be at least, if pkg_delete kills the daemon, pkg_add or make install should start it, and the user can optionally disable this behavior. Cheers, -- Xin LI https://www.delphij.net/ FreeBSD - The Power to Serve! Live free or die ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Thank you (for making the ports less boring).
On 15 Sep 2011 20:52, "Matthias Andree" wrote: > > Am 15.09.2011 21:36, schrieb Łukasz Wąsikowski: > > > BTW: You hate having a software update break your software. I hate when > > software updates turn off services on my servers. That's another thing > > portage do better - update won't turn off any service. You are supposed > > to restart services manually after doing etc-update. Speaking of which - > > another good idea worth adopting. > > Few ports stop services when getting deinstalled/upgraded, so it may be > worth pinging the affected ports' maintainers about it. Really? I thought it was supposed to be standard behaviour- the @stopdaemon line in pkg-plist facilitates that. I know the old pkg tools won't do this, but perhaps pkgng could have an option to disable stopping if desired Chris ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Thank you (for making the ports less boring).
Am 15.09.2011 21:36, schrieb Łukasz Wąsikowski: > BTW: You hate having a software update break your software. I hate when > software updates turn off services on my servers. That's another thing > portage do better - update won't turn off any service. You are supposed > to restart services manually after doing etc-update. Speaking of which - > another good idea worth adopting. Few ports stop services when getting deinstalled/upgraded, so it may be worth pinging the affected ports' maintainers about it. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Thank you (for making the ports less boring).
W dniu 2011-09-15 20:37, Chad Perrin pisze: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 08:46:10PM +0200, Łukasz Wąsikowski wrote: >> W dniu 2011-09-15 20:08, Chad Perrin pisze: >>> >>> If there was something broken with a FreeBSD port (a relative >>> rarity), it would fail to install, leaving me with the older >>> version. If there was something wrong with a Gentoo port, I'd end >>> up with a broken install. >> >> That's true. But I've got probably less then 5 situations when Gentoo >> port broke that way. Overall experience of every day portage use is >> just plain better. I hope for some changes in FreeBSD's ports system, >> we know where to look for some good ideas. > > It seems we have different priorities. I *hate* having a software update > break my software. I would rather go through an extra step or two when > updating my software if it means I won't get an update that makes the > software unusable. I'm not saying that portage is perfect, I'm just saying FreeBSD could grab some good things from it. Recent gdbm update broke some systems, because IIRC maintainer forgot to check all dependencies or mention it in UPDATING. Shared library bumps in Gentoo always comes with "after install" info about necessary revdep-rebuild run, so those kinds of trouble are avoided. BTW: You hate having a software update break your software. I hate when software updates turn off services on my servers. That's another thing portage do better - update won't turn off any service. You are supposed to restart services manually after doing etc-update. Speaking of which - another good idea worth adopting. -- best regards, Lukasz Wasikowski ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Thank you (for making the ports less boring).
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 08:46:10PM +0200, Łukasz Wąsikowski wrote: > W dniu 2011-09-15 20:08, Chad Perrin pisze: > > > > If there was something broken with a FreeBSD port (a relative > > rarity), it would fail to install, leaving me with the older > > version. If there was something wrong with a Gentoo port, I'd end > > up with a broken install. > > That's true. But I've got probably less then 5 situations when Gentoo > port broke that way. Overall experience of every day portage use is > just plain better. I hope for some changes in FreeBSD's ports system, > we know where to look for some good ideas. It seems we have different priorities. I *hate* having a software update break my software. I would rather go through an extra step or two when updating my software if it means I won't get an update that makes the software unusable. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpY0oEeYLHFW.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Thank you (for making the ports less boring).
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 W dniu 2011-09-15 20:08, Chad Perrin pisze: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 07:00:47PM +0200, Łukasz Wąsikowski wrote: >> W dniu 2011-09-14 18:15, Christopher J. Ruwe pisze: >>> >>> Came as Gentoo user, abandoned Gentoo because of to many quirks >>> with updating packages (ebuilds). From my perspective, the >>> situation is better here (FreeBSD). >> >> Really? I've been using FreeBSD for over 10 years now, Gentoo for >> half of that time and I can surely say that Gentoo's portage is >> much better than FreeBSD's ports. > > There are some nice things that portage does, and my experience > with Gentoo is a few years out of date by now, but I remember one > difference that made software management on FreeBSD much better > than on Gentoo: > > If there was something broken with a FreeBSD port (a relative > rarity), it would fail to install, leaving me with the older > version. If there was something wrong with a Gentoo port, I'd end > up with a broken install. That's true. But I've got probably less then 5 situations when Gentoo port broke that way. Overall experience of every day portage use is just plain better. I hope for some changes in FreeBSD's ports system, we know where to look for some good ideas. - -- best regards Lukasz Wasikowski -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk5yR/IACgkQXlaUxx+udUXOKACfTusKK6NZ3NRvH2TPY6iVGGI7 cjkAnRYKjy5mqLROarl8AGN32467NlGi =UhL1 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Thank you (for making the ports less boring).
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 07:00:47PM +0200, Łukasz Wąsikowski wrote: > W dniu 2011-09-14 18:15, Christopher J. Ruwe pisze: > > > > Came as Gentoo user, abandoned Gentoo because of to many quirks with > > updating packages (ebuilds). From my perspective, the situation is > > better here (FreeBSD). > > Really? I've been using FreeBSD for over 10 years now, Gentoo for half > of that time and I can surely say that Gentoo's portage is much better > than FreeBSD's ports. There are some nice things that portage does, and my experience with Gentoo is a few years out of date by now, but I remember one difference that made software management on FreeBSD much better than on Gentoo: If there was something broken with a FreeBSD port (a relative rarity), it would fail to install, leaving me with the older version. If there was something wrong with a Gentoo port, I'd end up with a broken install. I suppose your mileage may vary. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpBGGbQAL3wB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Thank you (for making the ports less boring).
W dniu 2011-09-14 18:15, Christopher J. Ruwe pisze: > Matthias Andree wrote: > > [...] > >> I think you mentioned Arch Linux, further suggestions would be >> Gentoo Linux (you might like emerge), and further options are >> Debian GNU/kFreeBSD and using a FreeBSD base system with pkgsrc >> (rather than ports) on top. > > Came as Gentoo user, abandoned Gentoo because of to many quirks > with updating packages (ebuilds). From my perspective, the > situation is better here (FreeBSD). Really? I've been using FreeBSD for over 10 years now, Gentoo for half of that time and I can surely say that Gentoo's portage is much better than FreeBSD's ports. 1. If there's a need for sysadmin to perform some tasks after updating a port: FreeBSD - look up UPDATING and search for any of the ports you're about to update. Gentoo - update whatever you need, at the end of the process you'll get all the information you need right on the screen. 2. Libraries bumps: FreeBSD: pkg_libchk likes to show false positives. Gentoo: revdep-rebuild works like a charm. 3. Someone deleted port I like to use / I want my personal ports tree: FreeBSD: I wish :/ Gentoo: overlays works well. 4. Port's options: FreeBSD: per port options in /var/db/ports or global in /etc/make.conf. It's hard to tell during update what options are set for the port. Also if I won't look in the Makefile of a specific port I won't be able to tell if WITH_SOMETHING will work with it. Gentoo: USE flags (global and per port) are nice to use and you see all the options set in one place during the update. 5. Port's versioning: FreeBSD: most ports available in one version, hard to downgrade if new version is not what I wanted for whatever reason. Gentoo: most ports available in at least few versions, update / downgrade is not a problem. -- best regards Lukasz Wasikowski ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Thank you (for making the ports less boring).
Quoth Tony Mc on Wednesday, 14 September 2011: > On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 21:27:22 +0200 > Michal Varga wrote: > > > I have no other words beyond that because I can't even seriously > > imagine what those people stating how everything is perfectly fine > > now consider to be a working, modern, 24/7 ready desktop workstation. > > I am interested to know what you regard as a modern 24/7 ready desktop > workstation. Seriously, I would like to know what you think I am > missing by being happy with FreeBSD. I manage to read stuff, write > stuff, print stuff, listen to stuff, watch stuff, backup stuff, archive > stuff, burn CDs and DVDs - what am I missing? I use tcsh > and command-line tools and Emacs and org-mode and LaTeX and claws-mail > and Firefox and Rhythmbox and JPilot to sync with my Palm TX. When > people send me Microsoft Office documents I even use LibreOffice > occasionally. I use XFCE4 as my desktop environment and switch virtual > desktops to focus on different kinds of activity. The computer runs > 24/7 and performs housekeeping tasks overnight and is there again in > the morning when I need to start work. > > I suppose my needs aren't that sophisticated - but I also wonder if > what is missing is truly sophistication or simply different ways of > accomplishing existing tasks. So if you have the time I would genuinely > be interested to learn what a modern desktop machine now needs or > offers. > > Best, > Tony By contrast, I avoid the GUI stuff as much as I can. I use a tiling window manager and almost everything I do, from writing code to listening to music, happens in a terminal window. My editor is vim, and my MUA is mutt. Yet as different as our desktop experiences are, FreeBSD powers them both. One of the reasons I like FreeBSD for the desktop is that I can make it anything I want. With Windows, I have to accept how Windows works -- the ability to customize that experience is extremely limited. -- .O. | Sterling (Chip) Camden | http://camdensoftware.com ..O | sterl...@camdensoftware.com | http://chipsquips.com OOO | 2048R/D6DBAF91 | http://chipstips.com pgpnEL0dBZBje.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Thank you (for making the ports less boring).
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 21:27:22 +0200 Michal Varga wrote: > I have no other words beyond that because I can't even seriously > imagine what those people stating how everything is perfectly fine > now consider to be a working, modern, 24/7 ready desktop workstation. I am interested to know what you regard as a modern 24/7 ready desktop workstation. Seriously, I would like to know what you think I am missing by being happy with FreeBSD. I manage to read stuff, write stuff, print stuff, listen to stuff, watch stuff, backup stuff, archive stuff, burn CDs and DVDs - what am I missing? I use tcsh and command-line tools and Emacs and org-mode and LaTeX and claws-mail and Firefox and Rhythmbox and JPilot to sync with my Palm TX. When people send me Microsoft Office documents I even use LibreOffice occasionally. I use XFCE4 as my desktop environment and switch virtual desktops to focus on different kinds of activity. The computer runs 24/7 and performs housekeeping tasks overnight and is there again in the morning when I need to start work. I suppose my needs aren't that sophisticated - but I also wonder if what is missing is truly sophistication or simply different ways of accomplishing existing tasks. So if you have the time I would genuinely be interested to learn what a modern desktop machine now needs or offers. Best, Tony ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Thank you (for making the ports less boring).
On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 00:20:13 +0200 Matthias Andree wrote: [...] > I think you mentioned Arch Linux, further suggestions would be Gentoo > Linux (you might like emerge), and further options are Debian > GNU/kFreeBSD and using a FreeBSD base system with pkgsrc (rather than > ports) on top. Came as Gentoo user, abandoned Gentoo because of to many quirks with updating packages (ebuilds). From my perspective, the situation is better here (FreeBSD). Cheers -- Christopher J. Ruwe TZ GMT + 2 pgpzNAteUNkv3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Thank you (for making the ports less boring).
Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: > On 09/13/2011 09:11 AM, Oliver Fromme wrote: > > Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: > > > particularly nasty thing to do. I get the impression that each > > > committer has his own special way of doing this. For example, I have > > > personally found that a simple grep won't work, because "grep xxx > > > /usr/ports/*/Makefile*" just creates a line too long for the shell to > > > handle. I use a shell construction involving "find" but I wonder how > > > others do the same thing. > > > > cd /usr/ports > > echo */*/Makefile* | xargs grep xxx > > That's amazing. > > It would never have occurred to me that "echo */*/Makefile*" works when > "grep xxx */*/Makefile*". Is that because "echo" is a builtin command > in csh (which is what I use)? I notice "/bin/echo */*/Makefile*" > doesn't work. Yes, exactly. When the shell executes an external command, it uses the execve(2) syscall, which has a limit for the size of the argument list. This is why xargs(1) exists. In the past century this limit was 64 KB, then it was raised to 256 KB when people started measuring RAM in GB. There's a read-only sysctl for that value: $ sysctl kern.argmax kern.argmax: 262144 Built-in commands are not affected by the limit because they run inside the shell process itself, so the execve(2) syscall is not involved. echo(1) is a built-in command in all common shells, so "echo ... | xargs" always works. However, if you type /bin/echo, you force the shell to execute the external command, so the limit applies again. You can also write "for i in */*/Makefile*; do ..." or similar (in /bin/sh) without worrying for limits, for the same reason. > Is this documented somewhere? Good question. It should be mentioned in the shells' man- pages, e.g. csh(1) mentions it in the "LIMITATIONS" section (among other strange limitations specific to csh). Also, the xargs(1) manpage mentions ARG_MAX, and the execve(2) manpage explains that the syscall will fail (errno E2BIG) if "the number of bytes in the new process' argument list is larger than the system-imposed limit". I'm pretty sure that _every_ book on shell scripting will explain the argument list limit, and how to circumvent it. Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing b. M. Handelsregister: Registergericht Muenchen, HRA 74606, Geschäftsfuehrung: secnetix Verwaltungsgesellsch. mbH, Handelsregister: Registergericht Mün- chen, HRB 125758, Geschäftsführer: Maik Bachmann, Olaf Erb, Ralf Gebhart FreeBSD-Dienstleistungen, -Produkte und mehr: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd "If Java had true garbage collection, most programs would delete themselves upon execution." -- Robert Sewell ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Thank you (for making the ports less boring).
## per...@pluto.rain.com (per...@pluto.rain.com): > > I notice "/bin/echo */*/Makefile*" doesn't work. > > The same (builtin echo works, /bin/echo not) happens in /bin/sh, > and in bash. > > > Is this documented somewhere? > > Not that I know of. There is a limit to the length of arguments to the exec()-functions (measured in bytes). It's even in POSIX.1: ARG_MAX, you can query it with "getconf ARG_MAX". When using shell builtins (like echo, instead of the "external" /bin/echo), no exec() happens and the limit does not apply. If I got my history right, this was even in 4.4BSD. Regards, Christoph -- Spare Space. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Thank you (for making the ports less boring).
Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: > It would never have occurred to me that "echo */*/Makefile*" > works when "grep xxx */*/Makefile*". Is that because "echo" > is a builtin command in csh (which is what I use)? I don't know, but I can think of no better explanation. > I notice "/bin/echo */*/Makefile*" doesn't work. The same (builtin echo works, /bin/echo not) happens in /bin/sh, and in bash. > Is this documented somewhere? Not that I know of. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Thank you (for making the ports less boring).
Am 13.09.2011 21:27, schrieb Michal Varga: > Though if I had to pick a random case again, it probably wouldn't be too > hard to make some wildly unsubstantiated guesses: > > ## From: Matthias Andree > ## Mailer: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.21) "Wildly unsubstantiated" pretty much nails it. The thing you can see from a second look into ports/ is that FreeBSD's ports Thunderbird is up to date, unlike my Thunderbird 3.1 on Linux. Now what? Nothing proven. :) > Still I thank everyone for polite replies which were actually a welcome > change for this kind of threads, but as there is obviously something > fundamentally different between how I and rest of you guys perceive an > actually working FreeBSD (or any other, for the matter) workstation, I'm > going to let it go, this is not the kind fight one would be able to win > in any case. And our working desktops don't help you in the least in getting one too. I have gotten myself into situations where I mutilated my installation, to the point where X or some Desktop wouldn't start, and random applications crashed -- and the cause was usually taking short cuts or not noticing ports/UPDATING; more importantly, there are tools that can help avoid and/or fix that situation. For one, I'd start with ports-mgmt/portmaster to run portmaster --check-depends, and after that install */bsdadminscripts and run pkg_libchk and see what it comes up with in packages that want to be rebuilt in order to pull in up-to-date libraries. > For the next years, I'll be much better off with finishing my migration > to another system where the base OS will hardly ever be as good and > clean as FreeBSD, but the overall quality of 24/7 ready, stable, modern > desktop OS as a whole is by far too wide margin different from what I > gather is currently considered 'acceptable' here, in FreeBSD (ports) > circles. No offense meant, in any case. I think you mentioned Arch Linux, further suggestions would be Gentoo Linux (you might like emerge), and further options are Debian GNU/kFreeBSD and using a FreeBSD base system with pkgsrc (rather than ports) on top. Good luck in finding the system that really has fewer, rather than only different, quirks. :) ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Thank you (for making the ports less boring).
On 09/13/2011 09:11 AM, Oliver Fromme wrote: Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: > particularly nasty thing to do. I get the impression that each > committer has his own special way of doing this. For example, I have > personally found that a simple grep won't work, because "grep xxx > /usr/ports/*/Makefile*" just creates a line too long for the shell to > handle. I use a shell construction involving "find" but I wonder how > others do the same thing. cd /usr/ports echo */*/Makefile* | xargs grep xxx That's amazing. It would never have occurred to me that "echo */*/Makefile*" works when "grep xxx */*/Makefile*". Is that because "echo" is a builtin command in csh (which is what I use)? I notice "/bin/echo */*/Makefile*" doesn't work. Is this documented somewhere? ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Thank you (for making the ports less boring).
On 09/13/11 14:27, Michal Varga wrote: Sigh, okay. Some time earlier during the day I was still planning to address few interesting points (especially) Stephen raised, but by this time I'm finally getting to it and reading through the rest of the emails, I can see that this would only be a waste of time for everyone involved. Reading now through the posts one after another stating how FreeBSD ports/desktop experience was never more awesomestestest than it is now, I just feel like participating in some kind of bizarro 1st April joke, and the most coherent reply that comes to mind is: Wat. And again. Wat. Did I just read. I have no other words beyond that because I can't even seriously imagine what those people stating how everything is perfectly fine now consider to be a working, modern, 24/7 ready desktop workstation. Though if I had to pick a random case again, it probably wouldn't be too hard to make some wildly unsubstantiated guesses: ## From: Matthias Andree ## Mailer: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.21) Still I thank everyone for polite replies which were actually a welcome change for this kind of threads, but as there is obviously something fundamentally different between how I and rest of you guys perceive an actually working FreeBSD (or any other, for the matter) workstation, I'm going to let it go, this is not the kind fight one would be able to win in any case. For the next years, I'll be much better off with finishing my migration to another system where the base OS will hardly ever be as good and clean as FreeBSD, but the overall quality of 24/7 ready, stable, modern desktop OS as a whole is by far too wide margin different from what I gather is currently considered 'acceptable' here, in FreeBSD (ports) circles. No offense meant, in any case. m. Aside from things like virtualization, my desktop experience over the past 10+ years has been rather positive. I do everything but play video games on FreeBSD, and it works for me as a usable and relatively stable workstation. It took a lot of trial and error on my part, but I found a suitable workstation setup for me. Comparing my desktop experience now to how it was when I started in early 4.x, I'd say there has been significant improvement. FreeBSD is not perfect, and some areas need more work than others, but I'd say there has been an upward trend in overall quality over the years. Just my $0.02, take it for what it's worth. -- Sam Cassiba ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Thank you (for making the ports less boring).
Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote on 13.09.2011 16:03: In particular, checking which ports depend on a port just updated is a particularly nasty thing to do. I get the impression that each committer has his own special way of doing this. For example, I have personally found that a simple grep won't work, because "grep xxx /usr/ports/*/Makefile*" just creates a line too long for the shell to handle. I use a shell construction involving "find" but I wonder how others do the same thing. http://beta.freshports.org/*category*/*portname* Required by: for Build for Run is quite useful as for me. But it can't catch all of them. -- Regards, Ruslan Tinderboxing kills... the drives. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Thank you (for making the ports less boring).
Sigh, okay. Some time earlier during the day I was still planning to address few interesting points (especially) Stephen raised, but by this time I'm finally getting to it and reading through the rest of the emails, I can see that this would only be a waste of time for everyone involved. Reading now through the posts one after another stating how FreeBSD ports/desktop experience was never more awesomestestest than it is now, I just feel like participating in some kind of bizarro 1st April joke, and the most coherent reply that comes to mind is: Wat. And again. Wat. Did I just read. I have no other words beyond that because I can't even seriously imagine what those people stating how everything is perfectly fine now consider to be a working, modern, 24/7 ready desktop workstation. Though if I had to pick a random case again, it probably wouldn't be too hard to make some wildly unsubstantiated guesses: ## From: Matthias Andree ## Mailer: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.21) Still I thank everyone for polite replies which were actually a welcome change for this kind of threads, but as there is obviously something fundamentally different between how I and rest of you guys perceive an actually working FreeBSD (or any other, for the matter) workstation, I'm going to let it go, this is not the kind fight one would be able to win in any case. For the next years, I'll be much better off with finishing my migration to another system where the base OS will hardly ever be as good and clean as FreeBSD, but the overall quality of 24/7 ready, stable, modern desktop OS as a whole is by far too wide margin different from what I gather is currently considered 'acceptable' here, in FreeBSD (ports) circles. No offense meant, in any case. m. -- Michal Varga, Stonehenge (Gmail account) ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Thank you (for making the ports less boring).
Am 13.09.2011 11:10, schrieb Michal Varga: > On Mon, 2011-09-12 at 18:46 -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: > >>> I found Michal Varga's critique snarky and unnecessarily sarcastic... >> >> I agree that it was unnecessarily sarcastic. We all make mistakes from >> time to time. Michal could have pointed out the mistake and still been >> nice about it. I know for myself that when I make a mistake like this >> that I feel bad enough as it is, and I don't need anyone rubbing it in. >> >> Stephen > > Honestly, I wasn't trying to pick on Gabor any specifically, because as > you say, mistakes can happen. > > But the sad part of the story is that we're in 2011 and these kinds of > mistakes still happen, over and over, till absurdity. And not just > "still", they grow by magnitudes which now feels like from month to > month, from week to week (and I'm not going to be experiencing this here > when it finally hits the "days" scale, followed by an implosion of the > Universe). > > I'm not writing about this for the first time (in fact this is for the > last time, so hey, at least there's something on a positive note), but > it has gradually become nigh impossible to use FreeBSD as a modern > desktop workstation over the recent years, and especially this last year > has become a true nightmare. > > It would be pointless to simply repeat what I already said in those > previous discussions about the current - and very poor - ports quality > (or more specifically, total lack of quality control procedures), and it > would just get ignored again anyway (pretty good pointer being that at > about the same time as the last such thread spawned, just some random > bikeshedding discussion about a proper use of academic english in ports > or whatever pointless crap generated ten-times the same content over > like, 5 minutes tops. Because it's good to have some priorities > straight.) > > And if it wasn't Gabor's commit that again brought my OS down to > unusable level, it would be the one next week, or if we are lucky, two > to three weeks from now (but that would be probably this year's record). > Because the current procedures in place not only encourage these kinds > of mistakes, they downright call for them. Because there are no > procedures whatsoever. Not in the ecosystem-wide sense. Not the ones > that are crucial to make the OS actually work as a whole. But hey, I'm > not going to reiterate all that over again. It's been said. > > Just that before someone tells me again that I should not upgrade my > ports so frequently, or that I should make (shlib, or any other) backups > before any and every update (how is it that after a decade with ports > such novel idea didn't even cross my mind?), or that I should keep > sending patches every time my system is down again (because that's > obviously the most perfect time to start checking if the update actually > works), or that I should just go install PC-BSD... > > ...seriously guys? > > ...SERIOUSLY? > > Every time I visit my favorite restaurant, I should probably wait for a > few hours too, quietly watching if someone didn't die of food poisoning > before I finally order for myself, or that I should dig some old food > from the fridge and just bring it over as a backup, or heck, just leave > it be and simply order a pizza. Right? Are there still any more useful > suggestions this time? If so, please, don't make them. Just don't. > > So there's just one more thing I will add and I'm done with it all > (after all, I have some desktop migrations ahead of me and those penguin > boxes still won't plan and install themselves, even in 2011): > > On Tue, 2011-09-13 at 01:01 +0200, Gabor Kovesdan wrote: >> Btw, from your long mail I see you have lots of free time. You should >> think of spending that better than writing such long mails. Think about >> being a FreeBSD volunteer. ;) > > Yes, only if I wasn't spending all my free time constantly fixing new > breakages from latest port upgrades. I can easily see why so many people > think that the whole situation is actually pretty funny, or on the > opposite, that no 'situation' with ports even exists at all. Picking > just randomly here: > > ## From: Gabor Kovesdan > ## Mailer: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:9.0a1) > > ## From: Stephen Montgomery-Smith > ## Mailer: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.21) > > [and watching this on a full-list scale is truly a sight to behold] > > Sadly, as an actual FreeBSD desktop user, I don't have the luxury to > just keep politely filing PRs over and over or compile packs of patches > every time a new untested port breaks everything, because by the time > I'm done fixing all the failures (or more probably, still looking for > some ways on how to resolve the remaining ones), my day is long over, > and I sometimes need to even use those FreeBSD boxes as they were meant > to be in the first place. I beg to cast a different vote here. I can say that, th
Re: Thank you (for making the ports less boring).
Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: > particularly nasty thing to do. I get the impression that each > committer has his own special way of doing this. For example, I have > personally found that a simple grep won't work, because "grep xxx > /usr/ports/*/Makefile*" just creates a line too long for the shell to > handle. I use a shell construction involving "find" but I wonder how > others do the same thing. cd /usr/ports echo */*/Makefile* | xargs grep xxx If your shell is zsh, you can also use zargs (see the man page for details): zargs */*/Makefile* -- grep xxx On the topic of this thread: I also use FreeBSD as desktop OS on my workstations, both at home and at the office, for about 15 years. My impression is that the quality of the ports collection improved during all that time, except for a few specific incidents. Of course it does sometimes happen that something doesn't work. That's a natural thing, given that there are more than 20k ports and several hundred people are working on it at the same time. These things are usually fixed very quickly. Sometimes there's an obscure problem that doesn't seem to happen to anybody else, so I have to debug and fix it myself (followed by PR'ing the issue, of course), but that's ok, too. This is open source after all. It should also be emphasized that old libraries should always be saved when updating ports. This would have saved Michal from the gdbm problem. portupgrade does that by default (as does portup), while portmaster requires the -w option to do that (which is unfavorable, in my opinion; it should do that by default, too). Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing b. M. Handelsregister: Registergericht Muenchen, HRA 74606, Geschäftsfuehrung: secnetix Verwaltungsgesellsch. mbH, Handelsregister: Registergericht Mün- chen, HRB 125758, Geschäftsführer: Maik Bachmann, Olaf Erb, Ralf Gebhart FreeBSD-Dienstleistungen, -Produkte und mehr: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd Python is executable pseudocode. Perl is executable line noise. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Thank you (for making the ports less boring).
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 11:10:51AM +0200, Michal Varga wrote: > > So believe me, as soon as my systems are all on [insert any modern and > properly maintained desktop OS/distribution that works, which based on > my tests over the last few weeks quite nicely fills Arch Linux, but then > many else would surely work too] and thus my current work on constantly > fixing *my* FreeBSDs is cut down by 99%, I'm all hands in for some good > old fashioned volunteering. In my experience, FreeBSD is actually on the high side of the stable, sanely operating, well-maintained scale. That is not to say that I find it highly stable, very sanely operating, and extremely well-maintained. It just means that everything else I've used with any regularity is even worse. That means dozens of Linux distributions and almost every MS Windows release since 3.1 way back in the early '90s. I'm not in a position to speak directly of those characteristics for Arch Linux, but not for lack of trying: the two times I tried it, the damned thing wouldn't even install. From what I have seen, any time someone says "Oh, I don't have any problems with this OS at all," for *any* OS -- and that includes the couple of times I've said that over the years -- the reason for saying so is a lack of lengthy experience with that OS or just a combination of pure blind luck and very low-demand usage. Every OS I've used with any regularity really kinda blows where one kind of stability or another is concerned; most of them suck in terms of the usability of whatever is its equivalent of a userland on that system; all of them suck to varying degrees where maintenance of the OS project is concerned (no offense to the people working hard to maintain it, most of whom do very good work). My prediction is that moving to Arch Linux will probably result in temporary relief from the problems of FreeBSD, but the experience will eventually be soured by the gradual recognition of (somewhat different) problems. For the moment, FreeBSD is still the best workstation OS I have encountered, for my purposes -- after about six years. That's some kind of record for me, and this is why I'm trying to avail myself of the relevant knowledge to contribute to the project by picking up maintainership if an unmaintained port. By the way, making it easier to get this stuff "right" would help a lot: * ensuring that there's more complete documentation for port maintenance (including adding the stuff about the CVS attic to the porter's handbook) * making the documentation more approachable for beginners who may not be C programmers with an in-depth understanding of makefiles * even making the documentation and/or operation of the send-pr tools more approachable, if only because this is an interface to ports maintenance that should be available and approachable for *every* user of the OS That's just my relatively uninformed opinion. I welcome corrections of any misunderstandings under which I may labor. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgp6I4dbx384I.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Thank you (for making the ports less boring).
On 09/13/2011 04:10 AM, Michal Varga wrote: And if it wasn't Gabor's commit that again brought my OS down to unusable level, it would be the one next week, or if we are lucky, two to three weeks from now (but that would be probably this year's record). Because the current procedures in place not only encourage these kinds of mistakes, they downright call for them. Because there are no procedures whatsoever. Not in the ecosystem-wide sense. Not the ones that are crucial to make the OS actually work as a whole. But hey, I'm not going to reiterate all that over again. It's been said. Hi Michal, I see where you are coming from. I just recently became a ports committer. Before, when I would submit ports, there were certain mistake consistently made by the committers. Now that I am a committer, I can see how the tools used by the committers would lead to these consistent mistakes. In particular, checking which ports depend on a port just updated is a particularly nasty thing to do. I get the impression that each committer has his own special way of doing this. For example, I have personally found that a simple grep won't work, because "grep xxx /usr/ports/*/Makefile*" just creates a line too long for the shell to handle. I use a shell construction involving "find" but I wonder how others do the same thing. My day job is taking a lot of my time right now. But when things start to calm down, I'll start thinking about changes to the ecosystem of FreeBSD ports committing, and creating a set of more unified tools for the other ports committers to look at. Finally, I did notice that since the overheated conversation of a few weeks ago, that a couple of people who wanted to update ports did contact me first. This is because I maintain ports that depend on their proposed update. So maybe your complaints are being heard, at least on one level. Best regards, Stephen ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Thank you (for making the ports less boring).
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 11:10:51 +0200 Michal Varga wrote: > I'm not writing about this for the first time (in fact this is for the > last time, so hey, at least there's something on a positive note), but > it has gradually become nigh impossible to use FreeBSD as a modern > desktop workstation over the recent years, and especially this last > year has become a true nightmare. Michal, please understand, I am not dismissing your experience, but I think to provide some balance here I have to say that I have been using FreeBSD as my desktop OS for a few (about 10) years and I honestly believe it is now better than ever. Perhaps we simply use different sets of applications, perhaps my needs are not as complex as yours. Whatever the explanation, I am constantly surprised by the quality (by which I mean a combination of stability, up-to-date-ness, security, availability of good documentation and - always difficult to quantify - simplicity/graspability) of FreeBSD, an OS I can get for absolutely nothing that is (at least for my use) significantly better than anything else I have tried, paid for or free. Of course I sometimes hit obstacles, but they are always resolved within a few days and are never showstoppers (I can live without music on my desktop for that time, since I regard that as entertainment rather than productivity). I hope you have more joy of whatever flavour of Linux you end up using, but I fear that unless your needs are primarily about entertainment, you will only find that you have swapped one set of annoyances for another. At least that is my experience every time I try Linux because of the "Ooh, shiny!" effect. Despite being colour blind, I am deeply suspicious of what looks like greener grass on the other side of a fence. By the way, an example of how FreeBSD is now better than ever (at least for me) is that I can now run 9.0-BETA2 on my IBM Thinkpad T42 and suspend/resume works. I always had difficulties there with versions 8 and earlier and needed to run Linux on that machine while running FreeBSD on my desktop. Now I run FreeBSD 8.2-STABLE on the desktop and 9.0-BETA2 on the laptop and they work together through SSH. Best, Tony ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Thank you (for making the ports less boring).
On Mon, 2011-09-12 at 18:46 -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: > > I found Michal Varga's critique snarky and unnecessarily sarcastic... > > I agree that it was unnecessarily sarcastic. We all make mistakes from > time to time. Michal could have pointed out the mistake and still been > nice about it. I know for myself that when I make a mistake like this > that I feel bad enough as it is, and I don't need anyone rubbing it in. > > Stephen Honestly, I wasn't trying to pick on Gabor any specifically, because as you say, mistakes can happen. But the sad part of the story is that we're in 2011 and these kinds of mistakes still happen, over and over, till absurdity. And not just "still", they grow by magnitudes which now feels like from month to month, from week to week (and I'm not going to be experiencing this here when it finally hits the "days" scale, followed by an implosion of the Universe). I'm not writing about this for the first time (in fact this is for the last time, so hey, at least there's something on a positive note), but it has gradually become nigh impossible to use FreeBSD as a modern desktop workstation over the recent years, and especially this last year has become a true nightmare. It would be pointless to simply repeat what I already said in those previous discussions about the current - and very poor - ports quality (or more specifically, total lack of quality control procedures), and it would just get ignored again anyway (pretty good pointer being that at about the same time as the last such thread spawned, just some random bikeshedding discussion about a proper use of academic english in ports or whatever pointless crap generated ten-times the same content over like, 5 minutes tops. Because it's good to have some priorities straight.) And if it wasn't Gabor's commit that again brought my OS down to unusable level, it would be the one next week, or if we are lucky, two to three weeks from now (but that would be probably this year's record). Because the current procedures in place not only encourage these kinds of mistakes, they downright call for them. Because there are no procedures whatsoever. Not in the ecosystem-wide sense. Not the ones that are crucial to make the OS actually work as a whole. But hey, I'm not going to reiterate all that over again. It's been said. Just that before someone tells me again that I should not upgrade my ports so frequently, or that I should make (shlib, or any other) backups before any and every update (how is it that after a decade with ports such novel idea didn't even cross my mind?), or that I should keep sending patches every time my system is down again (because that's obviously the most perfect time to start checking if the update actually works), or that I should just go install PC-BSD... ...seriously guys? ...SERIOUSLY? Every time I visit my favorite restaurant, I should probably wait for a few hours too, quietly watching if someone didn't die of food poisoning before I finally order for myself, or that I should dig some old food from the fridge and just bring it over as a backup, or heck, just leave it be and simply order a pizza. Right? Are there still any more useful suggestions this time? If so, please, don't make them. Just don't. So there's just one more thing I will add and I'm done with it all (after all, I have some desktop migrations ahead of me and those penguin boxes still won't plan and install themselves, even in 2011): On Tue, 2011-09-13 at 01:01 +0200, Gabor Kovesdan wrote: > Btw, from your long mail I see you have lots of free time. You should > think of spending that better than writing such long mails. Think about > being a FreeBSD volunteer. ;) Yes, only if I wasn't spending all my free time constantly fixing new breakages from latest port upgrades. I can easily see why so many people think that the whole situation is actually pretty funny, or on the opposite, that no 'situation' with ports even exists at all. Picking just randomly here: ## From: Gabor Kovesdan ## Mailer: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:9.0a1) ## From: Stephen Montgomery-Smith ## Mailer: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.21) [and watching this on a full-list scale is truly a sight to behold] Sadly, as an actual FreeBSD desktop user, I don't have the luxury to just keep politely filing PRs over and over or compile packs of patches every time a new untested port breaks everything, because by the time I'm done fixing all the failures (or more probably, still looking for some ways on how to resolve the remaining ones), my day is long over, and I sometimes need to even use those FreeBSD boxes as they were meant to be in the first place. So believe me, as soon as my systems are all on [insert any modern and properly maintained desktop OS/distribution that works, which based on my tests over the last few weeks quite nicely fills Arch Linux, but then many else would surely work too] and thus my current work on
Re: Thank you (for making the ports less boring).
On Tue, 2011-09-13 at 01:01:17 +0200, Gabor Kovesdan wrote: > On 2011.09.12. 23:55, Michal Varga wrote: > [ Irony ignored. Btw, your Hungarian first name speaks for itself. ;) ] > > I did see the notice in the PR and I did grep the tree and I did > bump lots of ports. I'm also surprised how I did not notice some of > the ports. I apologize from the affected people. No problem, Gabor. Thanks for fixing the issue as quickly as you could. -- Sahil Tandon ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Thank you (for making the ports less boring).
On 09/12/2011 16:46, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: > We all make mistakes from time to time. Michal could have pointed out > the mistake and still been nice about it. I know for myself that when I > make a mistake like this that I feel bad enough as it is, and I don't > need anyone rubbing it in. Having just posted about his ongoing problems with ports stability I can feel Michal's pain, so hopefully we can all agree to cut *each other* some slack, and move on. :) Meanwhile, as someone else suggested 'portmaster -w' is a good tool here, and if you want to be really thorough (at the risk of potentially upgrading more than you need to) then 'portmaster -r gdbm' will kill the gnat with a hammer, so to speak. Doug -- Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much. -- OK Go Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/ ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Thank you (for making the ports less boring).
On 09/12/2011 06:09 PM, Chad Perrin wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 07:05:58PM -0400, Jerry wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 23:55:56 +0200
Michal Varga articulated:
So again, thank you for taking your part in ensuring that my days with
FreeBSD (the remaining few, so to say) won't become too boring. It's
much appreciated, really.
Seriously now, I thought I was the only one allowed to criticize
FreeBSD for {Pick a topic}. You have to remember the motto:
I found Michal Varga's critique snarky and unnecessarily sarcastic...
I agree that it was unnecessarily sarcastic. We all make mistakes from
time to time. Michal could have pointed out the mistake and still been
nice about it. I know for myself that when I make a mistake like this
that I feel bad enough as it is, and I don't need anyone rubbing it in.
Stephen
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Thank you (for making the ports less boring).
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 07:05:58PM -0400, Jerry wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 23:55:56 +0200
> Michal Varga articulated:
>
> > So again, thank you for taking your part in ensuring that my days with
> > FreeBSD (the remaining few, so to say) won't become too boring. It's
> > much appreciated, really.
>
> Seriously now, I thought I was the only one allowed to criticize
> FreeBSD for {Pick a topic}. You have to remember the motto:
I found Michal Varga's critique snarky and unnecessarily sarcastic, but
on-point and lacking in unreasonable choices of what to criticize. I
cannot say the same for the majority of yours.
>
> Now that you have vented, have you filed a PR against this
> behavior/port/WTF? If not, I would recommend you do so.
. . . as would I. It's interesting you got around to saying something
useful. Keep up the good work.
--
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
pgpnKiRfdoLqH.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Thank you (for making the ports less boring).
On 2011.09.12. 23:55, Michal Varga wrote: Dear maintainer of databases/gdbm, Thank you for committing the latest update of gdbm with a (nowhere to be found mentioned in UPDATING) shared library bump, which again makes my very dull FreeBSD installation a little bit more fun to maintain, and especially - *use* [ Irony ignored. Btw, your Hungarian first name speaks for itself. ;) ] I did see the notice in the PR and I did grep the tree and I did bump lots of ports. I'm also surprised how I did not notice some of the ports. I apologize from the affected people. Btw, from your long mail I see you have lots of free time. You should think of spending that better than writing such long mails. Think about being a FreeBSD volunteer. ;) Regards, Gabor ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Thank you (for making the ports less boring).
2011/9/12 Michal Varga : > Dear maintainer of databases/gdbm, > > Thank you for committing the latest update of gdbm with a (nowhere to be > found mentioned in UPDATING) shared library bump, which again makes my > very dull FreeBSD installation a little bit more fun to maintain, and > especially - *use* > > After all, it's been now running for close to a week without almost any > minor ports breakage, so I presume that alone warrants a quick fix to > that whole very boring and uneventful situation, of course: > > $ mplayer > /libexec/ld-elf.so.1: Shared object "libgdbm.so.3" not found, required > by "libpulse.so.0" I don't want to participate in any flamewar or conversation about how freebsd ports in general should work, and I'm sure you know what you're doing, but as a quick note (for you or anyone), if you use something like "portmaster" to update your ports, you can use the "-w" switch to save the old libs in /usr/local/lib/compat/pkg/ in case of bump. Really useful to not break your system. Cheers -- Olivier Smedts _ ASCII ribbon campaign ( ) e-mail: oliv...@gid0.org - against HTML email & vCards X www: http://www.gid0.org - against proprietary attachments / \ "Il y a seulement 10 sortes de gens dans le monde : ceux qui comprennent le binaire, et ceux qui ne le comprennent pas." ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Thank you (for making the ports less boring).
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 23:55:56 +0200
Michal Varga articulated:
> So again, thank you for taking your part in ensuring that my days with
> FreeBSD (the remaining few, so to say) won't become too boring. It's
> much appreciated, really.
Seriously now, I thought I was the only one allowed to criticize
FreeBSD for {Pick a topic}. You have to remember the motto:
"Criticizing Microsoft if to be considered constructive criticism;
criticizing {name your OS} is blasphemy and hate mongering and will
immediately lead to a flame war."
Now that you have vented, have you filed a PR against this
behavior/port/WTF? If not, I would recommend you do so.
--
Jerry ✌
jerry+po...@seibercom.net
Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the Reply-To header.
__
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Thank you (for making the ports less boring).
Dear maintainer of databases/gdbm,
Thank you for committing the latest update of gdbm with a (nowhere to be
found mentioned in UPDATING) shared library bump, which again makes my
very dull FreeBSD installation a little bit more fun to maintain, and
especially - *use*
After all, it's been now running for close to a week without almost any
minor ports breakage, so I presume that alone warrants a quick fix to
that whole very boring and uneventful situation, of course:
$ mplayer
/libexec/ld-elf.so.1: Shared object "libgdbm.so.3" not found, required
by "libpulse.so.0"
[And I'm not going bother posting the remaining epic crashing cascade of
all the other running PA applications, because then I might like, even
start to sound somewhat negative-ish for a short moment, and who would
possibly want to do that in the wholly beautiful day like this?]
Anyway, what I was going to say in the first place...
Ah, right - because, there is like, no possibility that a thing like
gdbm might be actually used as a dependency somewhere, like for example,
this tiny little unimportant piece of whateverish whatever called
pulseaudio, I presume?
I mean, what the heck, it's not like it's something as important as,
say, a major sound system heavily employed in at least one of the two
largest desktop environments of the current Unix world, so who could
even care?
Or, why even bother with a quick grep or some recursive checking? It's
not that if the update breaks anything, nobody will step up to complain,
and not that those crazy people out there can be seriously using FreeBSD
as their main desktop OS, heck, FreeBSD even haz sound nao?
And, anyway, it's Monday, real men would *hate* to start their weeks
without spending an hour or few fixing a cascade of new port breakages,
that goes without a question, no arguments from me.
"So yeah, ok," one would probably mutter to himself, "I see it's simply
that time of week again, so I'll just, like, rebuild everything
recursively to catch the latest bump as we do now every odd week anyway
and just get over it, not that there is anything better to do as the
system is already totally unusable (again).."
So yeah, that's easy fix, here we go then:
---> Reinstalling 'pulseaudio-0.9.22' (audio/pulseaudio)
---> Build of audio/pulseaudio started at: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:40:13 +0200
---> Building '/usr/ports/audio/pulseaudio'
===> Cleaning for pulseaudio-0.9.22
===> License check disabled, port has not defined LICENSE
===> Found saved configuration for pulseaudio-0.9.22
===> Extracting for pulseaudio-0.9.22
=> SHA256 Checksum OK for pulseaudio-0.9.22.tar.gz.
===> Patching for pulseaudio-0.9.22
===> pulseaudio-0.9.22 depends on package: libtool>=2.4 - found
===> Applying FreeBSD patches for pulseaudio-0.9.22
===> pulseaudio-0.9.22 depends on executable: gmake - found
===> pulseaudio-0.9.22 depends on file: /usr/local/libdata/pkgconfig/x11.pc -
found
===> pulseaudio-0.9.22 depends on file: /usr/local/libdata/pkgconfig/sm.pc -
found
===> pulseaudio-0.9.22 depends on file: /usr/local/libdata/pkgconfig/xtst.pc
- found
===> pulseaudio-0.9.22 depends on file: /usr/local/libdata/pkgconfig/ice.pc -
found
===> pulseaudio-0.9.22 depends on package: libtool>=2.4 - found
===> pulseaudio-0.9.22 depends on file: /usr/local/bin/intltool-extract -
found
===> pulseaudio-0.9.22 depends on executable: pkg-config - found
===> pulseaudio-0.9.22 depends on shared library: samplerate.1 - found
===> pulseaudio-0.9.22 depends on shared library: speexdsp.1 - found
===> pulseaudio-0.9.22 depends on shared library: dbus-1.3 - found
===> pulseaudio-0.9.22 depends on shared library: gdbm.3 - not found
===>Verifying install for gdbm.3 in /usr/ports/databases/gdbm
===> Extracting for gdbm-1.9.1
===> Patching for gdbm-1.9.1
[...]
===> Installing for gdbm-1.9.1
===> Generating temporary packing list
===> Checking if databases/gdbm already installed
===> gdbm-1.9.1 is already installed
*** Error code 1
Stop in /usr/ports/databases/gdbm.
*** Error code 1
Yeeey.
So I guess not.
Now is it what we think it is?
$ grep gdbm /usr/ports/audio/pulseaudio/Makefile
gdbm.3:${PORTSDIR}/databases/gdbm \
Color me surprised, at this point.
But I know. I know... It's not like the shared library bump was actually
mentioned in the initial PR in the first place or anything...
http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/160250
Oh. Right. It was.
So, like... It's not that there is, actually, somehow, anyhow, possible
to, dunno, maybe - NOT COMMITTING THE DAMN THING ALONE when there's
absolutely positively 100% guarantee that stuff depending on it WILL
INSTANTLY AND COMPLETELY BREAK.
Because, not like that a one single quick look would reveal that.
And I'm not even mentioning some actual real testing AND properly
solving the case for the whole dependency tree first, BEFORE committing
just the one port alone, because... If that was happening, what would
then be all tho
