Unable to upgrade packages on FreeBSD

[David Jackson]

I have tried endlessly to no avail to upgrade binary the packages on
Freebsd to the latest version. I have tried:

*portupgrade -PP -a
*portmaster -PP -a
*pkg_update

All fail miserably and totally and have left the system in an unuseable
state.

Why can't FreeBSD just make the package system "just work". Right after
installing FreeBSD I should be able to type a single command such as
update_packages and it should update all packages on the system, with no
errors and without requiring any configurations to be troubleshooted, it
should work out of the box.

Why not? Why is something so simple so difficult and impossible? Ubuntu can
do it, why not FreeBSD?

Why cant FreeBSD  Just make the package upgrades work.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Unable to upgrade packages on FreeBSD

[Bas Smeelen]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:52:07 -0500
David Jackson  wrote:

> I have tried endlessly to no avail to upgrade binary the packages on
> Freebsd to the latest version. I have tried:
> 
> *portupgrade -PP -a
> *portmaster -PP -a
> *pkg_update
> 
> All fail miserably and totally and have left the system in an
> unuseable state.

What's unusable? For instance, servers are perfectly usable without
graphical tools. If you have tried `endlessly` why didn't you
consult /usr/ports/UPDATING and just recompile the ports without
using binary packages?
Or you might want to try PCBSD, it's FreeBSD with some fancy stuff
taken care of which might solve the problem you complain about. 
> 
> Why can't FreeBSD just make the package system "just work". Right
> after installing FreeBSD I should be able to type a single command
> such as update_packages and it should update all packages on the
> system, with no errors and without requiring any configurations to be
> troubleshooted, it should work out of the box.
> 
> Why not? Why is something so simple so difficult and impossible?
> Ubuntu can do it, why not FreeBSD?

FreeBSD unlike Ubuntu is an entirely volunteer project. Ubuntu has
a dedicated corporation working on it and I guess a larger user base.
> 
> Why cant FreeBSD  Just make the package upgrades work.

Because uh well it's not up to FreeBSD since the ports work perfectly
with the documentation that comes with it or it might depend on the user
base also, but _you_ can help to make binary package upgrades work
better.


Disclaimer: http://www.ose.nl/email

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Unable to upgrade packages on FreeBSD

[David Jackson]

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Bas Smeelen  wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:52:07 -0500
> David Jackson  wrote:
>
> > I have tried endlessly to no avail to upgrade binary the packages on
> > Freebsd to the latest version. I have tried:
> >
> > *portupgrade -PP -a
> > *portmaster -PP -a
> > *pkg_update
> >
> > All fail miserably and totally and have left the system in an
> > unuseable state.
>
> What's unusable? For instance, servers are perfectly usable without
> graphical tools. If you have tried `endlessly` why didn't you
> consult /usr/ports/UPDATING and just recompile the ports without
> using binary packages?
> Or you might want to try PCBSD, it's FreeBSD with some fancy stuff
> taken care of which might solve the problem you complain about.
> >
>


I wish to use binary packages and I specifically do not want to compile
anything, it tends to take far too long to compile programs and would
rather install some packages and have it all work right away. Binary
packages are a big time saver and are more efficient. It should be easy for
FreeBSD to make it easy to install the most recent versions of all binary
packages, its beyond belief they cannot pull off such a simple ans straight
forward, and basic part of any OS.


> > Why can't FreeBSD just make the package system "just work". Right
> > after installing FreeBSD I should be able to type a single command
> > such as update_packages and it should update all packages on the
> > system, with no errors and without requiring any configurations to be
> > troubleshooted, it should work out of the box.
> >
> > Why not? Why is something so simple so difficult and impossible?
> > Ubuntu can do it, why not FreeBSD?
>
> FreeBSD unlike Ubuntu is an entirely volunteer project. Ubuntu has
> a dedicated corporation working on it and I guess a larger user base.
>

The reason that FreeBSD has a smaller user base is because it has a
dysfunctional package system and it is hard to upgrade package to the most
recent version, making FreeBSD more difficult to use/

But doing a workable package system is not difficult, it something that
FreeBSD should be easily able to make it easy to have a way to upgrade
packages to most recent versions out of box anbd in an error free and
reliable way.


> >
> > Why cant FreeBSD  Just make the package upgrades work.
>
> Because uh well it's not up to FreeBSD since the ports work perfectly
> with the documentation that comes with it or it might depend on the user
> base also, but _you_ can help to make binary package upgrades work
> better.
>
>
> A working package system is a part of any good operating system and saves
time from having to compile programs. It is more convenient for most users
to use packages so having a package system will make FreeBSD more popular.
the reason freebsd is not used by as many people as Ubuntu is because of
the extreme difficulty and unreliability of using FreeBSD.

FreeBSD does not HAVE to make the system reasonably easy to use for common
users who want to install packages, but it would be the right thing to do,
especially if FreeBSD wants more users.



>
> Disclaimer: http://www.ose.nl/email
>
> ___
> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "
> freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
>
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Unable to upgrade packages on FreeBSD

[Chad Perrin]

You talk a lot about how easy it is to maintain a binary package system.
I would like you to convince me that it is easy, keeping in mind that it
should remain compatible with the ports system.  I am willing to be
convinced.

-- 
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Unable to upgrade packages on FreeBSD

[Polytropon]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:04:56 -0500, David Jackson wrote:
> I wish to use binary packages and I specifically do not want to compile
> anything, it tends to take far too long to compile programs and would
> rather install some packages and have it all work right away.

That's often true, especially when you're low on resources
(CPU speed, disk, RAM).



> Binary
> packages are a big time saver and are more efficient.

More efficient? Depends. In regards of installation, they're
often faster. In regards of spped during operation... well,
depends. :-)

The binary packages are compiled from the ports sources with
the maintainer's default options. Those options might not
perform optimal on _every_ imaginable system. That's why
compiling from source can make programs run faster when
certain optimizations (e. g. specific CFLAGS, selection
of CPU at compile time) are applied. Also functionality
may increase as the default options may leave something
out.

A common example is mplayer: When compiled, it can have
much more functionality and can even work wonders on old
systems. The binary package doesn't give you that.

Other things to keep in mind are language settings. One
example is OpenOffice which needs to have the language
setting at compile time, especially if you're not using
the english language.

Finally, there may be licensing restrictions that forbid
the distribution in binary form, or even the distribution
through the FreeBSD system. Traditional Java may be seen
as an example.



> It should be easy for
> FreeBSD to make it easy to install the most recent versions of all binary
> packages, its beyond belief they cannot pull off such a simple ans straight
> forward, and basic part of any OS.

Again, it depends. The options maintainers define as the
default are typically okay for the build clusters that
process them - they create the binary packages from the
ports tree. At some occassions, options and dependencies
can take into account things that are already installed,
e. g. "foo" uses "bar" if "bar" is installed, but if it's
not installed, it fetches and installs "baz" instead.

Just imagine how many packages you would need to map all
possible combinations of dependencies present, options set
and languages available, and _then_ come up with a naming
scheme for the packages. :-)

I know it is _partially_ possible, or _has been_ in the
past. My famous example here is "pkg_add -r de-openoffice"
to get a full installation of OpenOffice that would work
(fully functional) and even bring a dictionary. With the
newer versions, this easy approach isn't possible anymore.

Just consider X: With or without HAL? With which drivers?
A package plus updates for every possible combination?



> The reason that FreeBSD has a smaller user base is because it has a
> dysfunctional package system and it is hard to upgrade package to the most
> recent version, making FreeBSD more difficult to use/

I do not agree with this statement. The user base of FreeBSD
consists of a major amount of people who do not use the
binary packages, as it seems, because ports work well for
them.

Of course I do not negate the value of the availability of
precompiled packages. In fact, I did use them a lot, but now
that I have sufficient power at home, I feel more comfortable
with building from source. However, I do like the concept of
doing "pkg_add -r " that will install the program
itself and the dependencies if needed, especially for things
that do not need any further tuning.



> But doing a workable package system is not difficult, it something that
> FreeBSD should be easily able to make it easy to have a way to upgrade
> packages to most recent versions out of box anbd in an error free and
> reliable way.

I have named some examples that show how difficult it can get.
That is only for installation. If you consider updating, things
may get a bit more complicated.



-- 
Polytropon
Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Unable to upgrade packages on FreeBSD

[Bas Smeelen]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:04:56 -0500
David Jackson  wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Bas Smeelen  wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:52:07 -0500
> > David Jackson  wrote:
> >
> > > I have tried endlessly to no avail to upgrade binary the packages
> > > on Freebsd to the latest version. I have tried:
> > >
> > > *portupgrade -PP -a
> > > *portmaster -PP -a
> > > *pkg_update
> > >
> > > All fail miserably and totally and have left the system in an
> > > unuseable state.
> >
> > What's unusable? For instance, servers are perfectly usable without
> > graphical tools. If you have tried `endlessly` why didn't you
> > consult /usr/ports/UPDATING and just recompile the ports without
> > using binary packages?
> > Or you might want to try PCBSD, it's FreeBSD with some fancy stuff
> > taken care of which might solve the problem you complain about.
> > >
> >
> 
> 
> I wish to use binary packages and I specifically do not want to
> compile anything, it tends to take far too long to compile programs
> and would rather install some packages and have it all work right
> away. Binary packages are a big time saver and are more efficient. It
> should be easy for FreeBSD to make it easy to install the most recent
> versions of all binary packages, its beyond belief they cannot pull
> off such a simple ans straight forward, and basic part of any OS.

I understand your motivations. 
On my 1,6GHz celeron it takes a lot of time to compile the ~600 ports I
use, especially chromium for instance and when I forget to give an
option to not bother me with questions it sits there waiting for me to
enter y or n.
Ports/ packages are not `a basic part` of the FreeBSD OS. I also don't
think it is simple and straight forward to satisfy all different user
requirements and options in a package system. Ubuntu for my taste has
had flukes in many ways many times in the past and still has (often
enough the developers desktop users complain). It works good with
complete upgrades at times, on the other hand it still leaves me
sometimes with an unusable freezing OS on the desktop, and before every
upgrade it has becomes mandatory to me to first try it with an USB boot.
This is something I cannot have on server systems being used 24x7.

> 
> 
> > > Why can't FreeBSD just make the package system "just work". Right
> > > after installing FreeBSD I should be able to type a single command
> > > such as update_packages and it should update all packages on the
> > > system, with no errors and without requiring any configurations
> > > to be troubleshooted, it should work out of the box.
> > >
> > > Why not? Why is something so simple so difficult and impossible?
> > > Ubuntu can do it, why not FreeBSD?
> >
> > FreeBSD unlike Ubuntu is an entirely volunteer project. Ubuntu has
> > a dedicated corporation working on it and I guess a larger user
> > base.
> >
> 
> The reason that FreeBSD has a smaller user base is because it has a
> dysfunctional package system and it is hard to upgrade package to the
> most recent version, making FreeBSD more difficult to use/
> 
> But doing a workable package system is not difficult, it something
> that FreeBSD should be easily able to make it easy to have a way to
> upgrade packages to most recent versions out of box anbd in an error
> free and reliable way.
> 
> 
> > >
> > > Why cant FreeBSD  Just make the package upgrades work.
> >
> > Because uh well it's not up to FreeBSD since the ports work
> > perfectly with the documentation that comes with it or it might
> > depend on the user base also, but _you_ can help to make binary
> > package upgrades work better.
> >
> >
> > A working package system is a part of any good operating system and
> > saves
> time from having to compile programs. It is more convenient for most
> users to use packages so having a package system will make FreeBSD
> more popular. the reason freebsd is not used by as many people as
> Ubuntu is because of the extreme difficulty and unreliability of
> using FreeBSD.

Well, if you are talking about desktop work places, you're
probably right. This is what PCBSD is for, or even Ubuntu or other
'Operating Systems'
On servers however FreeBSD is extremely reliable. It requires the
operator to take care of the system, OS updates and upgrades are rock
solid for decades and application (ports/ packages) updates/
upgrades require the operator to evaluate the changes in detail. I have
had a lot of trouble by the ease of upgrade/ update on other 'OS'
applications which I did not encounter on FreeBSD because FreeBSD
required me to think about what I was doing and then it
goes well the first time.

> 
> FreeBSD does not HAVE to make the system reasonably easy to use for
> common users who want to install packages, but it would be the right
> thing to do, especially if FreeBSD wants more users.

Again PCBSD might be an option.
It depends on what kind of users. Users who think and can rely on a
rock solid OS or users who just upgrade/ update and then sit wi

Re: Unable to upgrade packages on FreeBSD

[Bas Smeelen]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:04:56 -0500
David Jackson  wrote:


> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Bas Smeelen  wrote:
>   
> > On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:52:07 -0500
> > David Jackson  wrote:
> >  
> > > I have tried endlessly to no avail to upgrade binary the packages
> > > on Freebsd to the latest version. I have tried:
> > >
> > > *portupgrade -PP -a
> > > *portmaster -PP -a
> > > *pkg_update
> > >
> > > All fail miserably and totally and have left the system in an
> > > unuseable state.  
> >
> > What's unusable? For instance, servers are perfectly usable without
> > graphical tools. If you have tried `endlessly` why didn't you
> > consult /usr/ports/UPDATING and just recompile the ports without
> > using binary packages?
> > Or you might want to try PCBSD, it's FreeBSD with some fancy stuff
> > taken care of which might solve the problem you complain about.  
> > >  
> >  
> 
> 
> I wish to use binary packages and I specifically do not want to
> compile anything, it tends to take far too long to compile programs
> and would rather install some packages and have it all work right
> away. Binary packages are a big time saver and are more efficient. It
> should be easy for FreeBSD to make it easy to install the most recent
> versions of all binary packages, its beyond belief they cannot pull
> off such a simple ans straight forward, and basic part of any OS.  

I understand your motivations. 
On my 1,6GHz celeron it takes a lot of time to compile the ~600 ports I
use, especially chromium for instance and when I forget to give an
option to not bother me with questions it sits there waiting for me to
enter y or n.
Ports/ packages are not `a basic part` of the FreeBSD OS. I also don't
think it is simple and straight forward to satisfy all different user
requirements and options in a package system. Ubuntu for my taste has
had flukes in many ways many times in the past and still has (often
enough the developers desktop users complain). It works good with
complete upgrades at times, on the other hand it still leaves me
sometimes with an unusable freezing OS on the desktop, and before every
upgrade it has becomes mandatory to me to first try it with an USB boot.
This is something I cannot have on server systems being used 24x7.

> 
>   
> > > Why can't FreeBSD just make the package system "just work". Right
> > > after installing FreeBSD I should be able to type a single command
> > > such as update_packages and it should update all packages on the
> > > system, with no errors and without requiring any configurations
> > > to be troubleshooted, it should work out of the box.
> > >
> > > Why not? Why is something so simple so difficult and impossible?
> > > Ubuntu can do it, why not FreeBSD?  
> >
> > FreeBSD unlike Ubuntu is an entirely volunteer project. Ubuntu has
> > a dedicated corporation working on it and I guess a larger user
> > base.
> >  
> 
> The reason that FreeBSD has a smaller user base is because it has a
> dysfunctional package system and it is hard to upgrade package to the
> most recent version, making FreeBSD more difficult to use/
> 
> But doing a workable package system is not difficult, it something
> that FreeBSD should be easily able to make it easy to have a way to
> upgrade packages to most recent versions out of box anbd in an error
> free and reliable way.
> 
>   
> > >
> > > Why cant FreeBSD  Just make the package upgrades work.  
> >
> > Because uh well it's not up to FreeBSD since the ports work
> > perfectly with the documentation that comes with it or it might
> > depend on the user base also, but _you_ can help to make binary
> > package upgrades work better.
> >
> >
> > A working package system is a part of any good operating system and
> > saves  
> time from having to compile programs. It is more convenient for most
> users to use packages so having a package system will make FreeBSD
> more popular. the reason freebsd is not used by as many people as
> Ubuntu is because of the extreme difficulty and unreliability of
> using FreeBSD.  

Well, if you are talking about desktop work places, you're
probably right. This is what PCBSD is for, or even Ubuntu or other
'Operating Systems'
On servers however FreeBSD is extremely reliable. It requires the
operator to take care of the system, OS updates and upgrades are rock
solid for decades and application (ports/ packages) updates/
upgrades require the operator to evaluate the changes in detail. I have
had a lot of trouble by the ease of upgrade/ update on other 'OS'
applications which I did not encounter on FreeBSD because FreeBSD
required me to think about what I was doing and then it
goes well the first time.

> 
> FreeBSD does not HAVE to make the system reasonably easy to use for
> common users who want to install packages, but it would be the right
> thing to do, especially if FreeBSD wants more users.  

Again PCBSD might be an option.
It depends on what kind of users. Users who think and can rely on a
rock solid OS or users who just 

Re: Unable to upgrade packages on FreeBSD

[David Jackson]

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Polytropon  wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:04:56 -0500, David Jackson wrote:
> > I wish to use binary packages and I specifically do not want to compile
> > anything, it tends to take far too long to compile programs and would
> > rather install some packages and have it all work right away.
>
> That's often true, especially when you're low on resources
> (CPU speed, disk, RAM).
>
>
>
> > Binary
> > packages are a big time saver and are more efficient.
>
> More efficient? Depends. In regards of installation, they're
> often faster. In regards of spped during operation... well,
> depends. :-)
>
> The binary packages are compiled from the ports sources with
> the maintainer's default options. Those options might not
> perform optimal on _every_ imaginable system. That's why
> compiling from source can make programs run faster when
> certain optimizations (e. g. specific CFLAGS, selection
> of CPU at compile time) are applied. Also functionality
> may increase as the default options may leave something
> out.
>
> A common example is mplayer: When compiled, it can have
> much more functionality and can even work wonders on old
> systems. The binary package doesn't give you that.
>
> That is true. Well, unless is a problem with cross CPU compatability, all
available options should be compiled in by default. Mplayer (or it was some
video players) has a huge number of display targets for instance, they can
be runtime selected so support for all of them can be compiled in  my
default and the user can then select which one to use at runtime. I have
used video player where you can choose between OpenGL, plain X11, Xvideo,
and many other display options and I actually liked having these kinds of
runtime choices.

A package for these programs can be provided and if a user needs a compile
time option they can then spot compile them as needed.


> Other things to keep in mind are language settings. One
> example is OpenOffice which needs to have the language
> setting at compile time, especially if you're not using
> the english language.
>
>
You could compile a version of that for each language and I think thats
what Ubuntu does, or, just compile maybe top 1 or 2 most commonly used
language version and then other versions could be user compiled.


> Finally, there may be licensing restrictions that forbid
> the distribution in binary form, or even the distribution
> through the FreeBSD system. Traditional Java may be seen
> as an example.
>
>
> This is rare, but it happens. Most programs dont have this problem. a few
programs must be compiled like this, it is a lot easier to compile that
handful of programs for me than it is to compile the entire system.


>
> > It should be easy for
> > FreeBSD to make it easy to install the most recent versions of all binary
> > packages, its beyond belief they cannot pull off such a simple ans
> straight
> > forward, and basic part of any OS.
>
> Again, it depends. The options maintainers define as the
> default are typically okay for the build clusters that
> process them - they create the binary packages from the
> ports tree. At some occassions, options and dependencies
> can take into account things that are already installed,
> e. g. "foo" uses "bar" if "bar" is installed, but if it's
> not installed, it fetches and installs "baz" instead.
>
> Just imagine how many packages you would need to map all
> possible combinations of dependencies present, options set
> and languages available, and _then_ come up with a naming
> scheme for the packages. :-)
>
>
Just compile package for the package download site with all optionals and
functionality available. If it has optional dependancies, just install all
of the dependancies when the package that needs them is installed. Then
user can has all features avialable at runtime.

If its an one or the other type option, compile with the most commonly used
setting.

In many cases they use run time options in programs so this is not as much
of an issue in those cases.

if people want to make their own compile time options then they can resort
to compiling the package themselves.


I know it is _partially_ possible, or _has been_ in the
> past. My famous example here is "pkg_add -r de-openoffice"
> to get a full installation of OpenOffice that would work
> (fully functional) and even bring a dictionary. With the
> newer versions, this easy approach isn't possible anymore.
>
> Just consider X: With or without HAL? With which drivers?
> A package plus updates for every possible combination?
>
>
> Probably throw in all options at compile time for packages, such as HAL,
and then it will be available if people need to use it. If people dont want
a component, then they compile on their own.  As far as dependancies, the
program can be compiled to rely on them and they would be installed
automatically when  the depending application  is installed.

Im not sure what HAL does but Ive installed it for X Window System, if

Re: Unable to upgrade packages on FreeBSD

[RW]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:52:07 -0500
David Jackson wrote:

> I have tried endlessly to no avail to upgrade binary the packages on
> Freebsd to the latest version. I have tried:
> 
> *portupgrade -PP -a
> *portmaster -PP -a
> *pkg_update
> 
> All fail miserably and totally and have left the system in an
> unuseable state.

For the benefit of new readers David's question tend to take the form:

   I'm doing this the hard way, I'm refusing to compromise, 
   and yet it still isn't working.

I updated from ports yesterday and it did "just work". If you dropped
at least one of the -P flags, you should have less trouble.

If you need binary packages for a production server, then build your
own.

> Why can't FreeBSD just make the package system "just work". Right
> after installing FreeBSD I should be able to type a single command
> such as update_packages and it should update all packages on the
> system,

Why would you need to update packages after a fresh install? It's
better not to install any stale packages in the first place.


> Why not? Why is something so simple so difficult and impossible?
> Ubuntu can do it, why not FreeBSD?

Ubuntu does pretty much nothing but build packages from third-party
software that's either portable or Linux-centric. A lot of it is
inherited from Debian, it has a comparatively huge user-base, and
financial backing from a commercial company. 

 
> Why cant FreeBSD  Just make the package upgrades work.

You aren't telling us anything new here, *prebuilt* binary package are
a second-class way of updating on FreeBSD. Packages pretty much have
to be built for current and stable development branches for testing
purposes. They are built against a constantly changing ports tree with
variable lag which isn't ideal. 

Making it work like Ubuntu would need a lot more hardware and a lot
more work from port maintainers to support branching the ports tree. At
the moment there aren't really enough to maintain one tree.


___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Unable to upgrade packages on FreeBSD

[Bas Smeelen]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 00:02:44 +0100
Bas Smeelen  wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:04:56 -0500
> David Jackson  wrote:

To put it bluntly

It's the users fault
from my own experience

Apple: just fsck off
Mcrsft and Oracle and whom they have swallowed so far: just pay enough
bucks, it's still your fault wait for the next update
Ubuntu: just be rude on the mail-lists, wait for the next update or get
involved
FreeBSD: you could have known, RTFM! or get involved it's just as easy
with the FM

Netherlands: Bowmore Islay and others others are fore sale this week :)

Damn laptop is still compiling
Would be nice if there were stills compiling something else

Cheers


Disclaimer: http://www.ose.nl/email

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Unable to upgrade packages on FreeBSD

[Matthew Seaman]

On 30/01/2012 22:04, David Jackson wrote:
> Binary packages are a big time saver and are more efficient.

Yes, definitely -- this is true for many use cases.  Not all by any
means, but enough that binary packages are a must-have.

> It should be easy for FreeBSD to make it easy to install the most
> recent versions of all binary packages, its beyond belief they cannot
> pull off such a simple ans straight forward, and basic part of any
> OS.

Now this I dispute absolutely.  Whatever gave you the idea that
generating and maintaining an archive of binary packages was at all
"simple and straight forward?"  It is most emphatically neither of those
things.

Firstly there's a matter of the scale of the job -- the ports contains
around 23,000 different software packages.  That's pretty respectable
compared to most Linux distributions, remembering that there are several
hundred packages' worth of stuff in the base system which would have to
be packaged in a comparable Linux system.  Most of those software
packages are under active development, and virtually none of them are
prepared to alter their release schedules one iota to suit FreeBSD.
Just keeping that collection current is a huge task, let alone trying to
maintain and improve the system used to do it.

Then there's the small matter of compiling all that software to produce
the binary packages.  At the moment there are 3 different major OS
versions supported across two Tier-1 architectures (i386, amd64 --
everything is expected to work on Tier-1) and four Tier-2 architectures
(ia64, sparc64, powerpc, pc98 -- which should be supported for package
building, but only on a 'best efforts' basis) plus maybe 3 or 4 other
experimental architectures like arm and mips which have the potential to
become very important in the future as they are the basis of a lot of
embedded computing devices.  And people have the temerity to complain if
updates aren't available online within a few days!

To support all that takes some pretty impressive computing power spread
over three different data centers (I believe), all of which has been
*donated* to the FreeBSD project, and all of the power, cooling,
bandwidth, maintenance and other ongoing hosting costs are similarly
supplied by donation.  Not to mention a hard-core of about 20 key ports
committers, plus maybe a hundred-odd other committers taking a more
peripheral role, and some 4,000 other volunteers that do the work of
maintaining everything.

All of this elides one of the insanely great features of the ports --
which is how configurable and adaptable they are.  The trouble is, the
design of the ports really does work best for compiling from source.
There is functionality there which is somewhere between "incredibly
difficult" and "simply impossible" to push up to a set of pre-compiled
binary packages.  (Which, by the way, is a feature common to all binary
packaging systems: you always get whatever someone else thought was a
good idea at the time.)

The ports really are one of FreeBSD's crown jewels, and as a system for
compiling software from source and installing and maintaining the
results it has few peers.  It is certainly true that FreeBSD's binary
package management could be better.  Binary package management under
FreeBSD has always been seen as bit of a second choice compared to
ports, and consequently it has not had the same sort of development
effort put into it.  Until recently, that is.  We have literally just
had the announcement of the beta test version of the new next-generation
binary packaging system on the freebsd-ports@... list earlier today.
Don't get too excited though -- it will be months at the very least
before pkgng goes into anything like production.

Cheers,

Matthew

-- 
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil.   7 Priory Courtyard
  Flat 3
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate
JID: matt...@infracaninophile.co.uk   Kent, CT11 9PW



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Unable to upgrade packages on FreeBSD

[Steve Bertrand]

On 2012.01.30 18:40, David Jackson wrote:


Perhaps that is because the people who want to use packages have given up
on FreeBSD.


WTF?!? hint: I'm standing right beside you as you're saying this.

Steve
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Unable to upgrade packages on FreeBSD

[Roland Smith]

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 11:49:46PM +0100, Polytropon wrote:
> > Binary
> > packages are a big time saver and are more efficient.
> 
> More efficient? Depends. In regards of installation, they're
> often faster. In regards of spped during operation... well,
> depends. :-)
> 
> The binary packages are compiled from the ports sources with
> the maintainer's default options. Those options might not
> perform optimal on _every_ imaginable system. 

The defaults may also pull in a lot of stuff that you don't need. E.g, the
math/gnuplot port pulls in pdflib, teTeX and wxWidgets (among other things)!
That is quite heavy for a program for making graphs. 

Pdflib is restricted, and gnuplot has a perfectly working pdf output
when the cairo library is used (which is also the default). It also has X11
output without wxWidgets, and TeX support is only really interesting for TeX
users. That's not to criticize the maintainer, who presumably had good reason
to choose these defaults, but to illustrate a problem.

> Just consider X: With or without HAL? With which drivers?

Without! ;-)

> > The reason that FreeBSD has a smaller user base is because it has a
> > dysfunctional package system and it is hard to upgrade package to the most
> > recent version, making FreeBSD more difficult to use/

I doubt that is the main reason. Maybe for novice desktop users, but those
don't seem to be the majority or even a large part of the userbase.

> I do not agree with this statement. The user base of FreeBSD
> consists of a major amount of people who do not use the
> binary packages, as it seems, because ports work well for
> them.

Agreed.

> > But doing a workable package system is not difficult, it something that
> > FreeBSD should be easily able to make it easy to have a way to upgrade
> > packages to most recent versions out of box anbd in an error free and
> > reliable way.

There is a saying in engineering that everything is easy for the person who
doesn't have to do it.

Roland
-- 
R.F.Smith   http://www.xs4all.nl/~rsmith/
[plain text _non-HTML_ PGP/GnuPG encrypted/signed email much appreciated]
pgp: 1A2B 477F 9970 BA3C 2914  B7CE 1277 EFB0 C321 A725 (KeyID: C321A725)


pgpY06zzS5rDU.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Unable to upgrade packages on FreeBSD

[freebsd-lists-erik]

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 03:28:28PM -0700, Chad Perrin wrote:
> You talk a lot about how easy it is to maintain a binary package system.
> I would like you to convince me that it is easy, keeping in mind that it
> should remain compatible with the ports system.  I am willing to be
> convinced.
> 
> -- 
> Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]


Oh come on, guys. David is the same person who said that FreeBSD was
poorly documented.

http://osdir.com/ml/freebsd-questions/2011-12/msg00684.html

I really hate throwing around the 'T' word, but I'm starting to
wonder.  I'll give him the benefit of the doubt a bit longer.

David, it's increasingly clear that FreeBSD is not going to fit your
needs. If, for some reason, you are interested in the FreeBSD kernel,
but binary packages, consider GNU/kFreeBSD.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Unable to upgrade packages on FreeBSD

[Polytropon]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 18:40:50 -0500, David Jackson wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Polytropon  wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:04:56 -0500, David Jackson wrote:
> > > I wish to use binary packages and I specifically do not want to compile
> > > anything, it tends to take far too long to compile programs and would
> > > rather install some packages and have it all work right away.
> >
> > That's often true, especially when you're low on resources
> > (CPU speed, disk, RAM).
> >
> >
> >
> > > Binary
> > > packages are a big time saver and are more efficient.
> >
> > More efficient? Depends. In regards of installation, they're
> > often faster. In regards of spped during operation... well,
> > depends. :-)
> >
> > The binary packages are compiled from the ports sources with
> > the maintainer's default options. Those options might not
> > perform optimal on _every_ imaginable system. That's why
> > compiling from source can make programs run faster when
> > certain optimizations (e. g. specific CFLAGS, selection
> > of CPU at compile time) are applied. Also functionality
> > may increase as the default options may leave something
> > out.
> >
> > A common example is mplayer: When compiled, it can have
> > much more functionality and can even work wonders on old
> > systems. The binary package doesn't give you that.
> >
> That is true. Well, unless is a problem with cross CPU compatability, all
> available options should be compiled in by default. Mplayer (or it was some
> video players) has a huge number of display targets for instance, they can
> be runtime selected so support for all of them can be compiled in  my
> default and the user can then select which one to use at runtime. I have
> used video player where you can choose between OpenGL, plain X11, Xvideo,
> and many other display options and I actually liked having these kinds of
> runtime choices.

It's not just the output drivers, it's also the codecs.
There's a sheer plethora of them, and there are basically
three kinds of users:

a) I only install the codecs where I have the corresponding
   files to play; I don't want any other codecs.

b) I want all the codecs, so no matter what file I get, I can
   play it without further installation.

c) I'm frightened because I live in a country where playing
   MP3 is forbidden by law, so I better not install anything
   that could make my elected government suspicious and send
   me a federal trojan. :-)

Okay, two kinds of users.

In addition to the codecs, there's another thing that mplayer
can be selected upon compile time: if to include mencoder.
Further stuff includes gmplayer and gmencoder and the skins
for those programs.

Regarding CPU feature use, it seems that WITHOUT_RUNTIME_CPUDETECTION
(or what the option was called like) in combination with
over-optimized CFLAGS and CPUTYPE create a faster binary,
especially on older systems.



> A package for these programs can be provided and if a user needs a compile
> time option they can then spot compile them as needed.

The default options (which the maintainer chooses) do not
meet any of the two kinds of users mentioned above. In
fact, I would call the default mplayer "partially optimal"
because it's not the "full thing" and also not the "minimal
thing".



> > Other things to keep in mind are language settings. One
> > example is OpenOffice which needs to have the language
> > setting at compile time, especially if you're not using
> > the english language.
> >
> >
> You could compile a version of that for each language and I think thats
> what Ubuntu does, or, just compile maybe top 1 or 2 most commonly used
> language version and then other versions could be user compiled.

There are, I think... at least 10 languages available, and
combine this with Gnome, KDE and CUPS support OFF or ON,
and you have 10*2*2*2 = 80 packages, and still no scheme
to name them. :-)



> > Finally, there may be licensing restrictions that forbid
> > the distribution in binary form, or even the distribution
> > through the FreeBSD system. Traditional Java may be seen
> > as an example.
> >
> >
> This is rare, but it happens. Most programs dont have this problem. a few
> programs must be compiled like this, it is a lot easier to compile that
> handful of programs for me than it is to compile the entire system.

I fully agree. If I remember correctly, mpg123 has been such
a program, but compiling that is nothing compared to KDE. And
with the shrinking importance of Java... :-)



> > > It should be easy for
> > > FreeBSD to make it easy to install the most recent versions of all binary
> > > packages, its beyond belief they cannot pull off such a simple ans
> > straight
> > > forward, and basic part of any OS.
> >
> > Again, it depends. The options maintainers define as the
> > default are typically okay for the build clusters that
> > process them - they create the binary packages from the
> > ports tree. At some occassions, options and dependencies
> > ca

Re: Unable to upgrade packages on FreeBSD

[Greg Groth]

On 1/30/2012 6:13 PM, freebsd-lists-e...@erikosterholm.org wrote:

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 03:28:28PM -0700, Chad Perrin wrote:

You talk a lot about how easy it is to maintain a binary package system.
I would like you to convince me that it is easy, keeping in mind that it
should remain compatible with the ports system.  I am willing to be
convinced.

--
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]


Oh come on, guys. David is the same person who said that FreeBSD was
poorly documented.

http://osdir.com/ml/freebsd-questions/2011-12/msg00684.html

I really hate throwing around the 'T' word, but I'm starting to
wonder.  I'll give him the benefit of the doubt a bit longer.

David, it's increasingly clear that FreeBSD is not going to fit your
needs. If, for some reason, you are interested in the FreeBSD kernel,
but binary packages, consider GNU/kFreeBSD.


I'm finding this conversation very amusing.  After playing with I don't 
know how many Linux distributions since the mid-90's, and running into 
the same problem of things breaking after updating binary packages, I 
moved to FreeBSD around 5.0 for my web server.  Since that time, I've 
forced to do one reinstall due to a hardware failure, somewhere around 
7.0.  I am now running 8.2.  After going through I can't remember how 
many upgrades and updates, I've only had a couple of minor issues over 
the years (most were resolved after reading Updating after the fact ;-) 
).  I'll give up the time savings of binary packages vs. the 
dependability of compiling stuff myself any day.


Greg Groth
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Unable to upgrade packages on FreeBSD

[Chad Perrin]

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 01:52:19AM +0100, Polytropon wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 18:40:50 -0500, David Jackson wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Polytropon wrote:
> > >
> > > Other things to keep in mind are language settings. One example is
> > > OpenOffice which needs to have the language setting at compile
> > > time, especially if you're not using the english language.
> >
> > You could compile a version of that for each language and I think
> > thats what Ubuntu does, or, just compile maybe top 1 or 2 most
> > commonly used language version and then other versions could be user
> > compiled.
> 
> There are, I think... at least 10 languages available, and combine this
> with Gnome, KDE and CUPS support OFF or ON, and you have 10*2*2*2 = 80
> packages, and still no scheme to name them. :-)

Don't forget compiling for multiple architectures.  That adds more
options -- and, unlike some of those other options, compiling for
different architectures is often actually a mutually-exclusive option
set.

-- 
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Unable to upgrade packages on FreeBSD

[Eduardo Morras]

At 00:45 31/01/2012, RW wrote:


Making it work like Ubuntu would need a lot more hardware and a lot
more work from port maintainers to support branching the ports tree. At
the moment there aren't really enough to maintain one tree.


Making a resume/summary of the thread; more hardware, time and people 
are needed to maintain a package system up-to-date. I have a free 
server (amd64 freebsd8.2p6), if i built all packages with their 
standard options, that's without make config, Can i upload them to 
the official package ftp? Should i make my own un-official ftp 
package server to allow others download them?


Perhaps it's not clear, this answer has ironic mode off, joking mode 
off and i want to collaborate making the standard packages.


When i needed the package system? When i don't want a downtime if a 
server must be reinstalled. Compiling everything takes too much time 
for non critical ports (bash, gcc4.6, ...), even at first i pkg_add 
important apps, when everything is working, i update them by ports.


L


___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Unable to upgrade packages on FreeBSD

[Matthew Seaman]

On 31/01/2012 09:56, Eduardo Morras wrote:
> Making a resume/summary of the thread; more hardware, time and people
> are needed to maintain a package system up-to-date. I have a free server
> (amd64 freebsd8.2p6), if i built all packages with their standard
> options, that's without make config, Can i upload them to the official
> package ftp? Should i make my own un-official ftp package server to
> allow others download them?
> 
> Perhaps it's not clear, this answer has ironic mode off, joking mode off
> and i want to collaborate making the standard packages.

While your offer is made with the best of intentions, I doubt the
project would feel able take you up on it.  The problem is simply one of
security -- while crowd-sourcing package compilation would be a pretty
sweet technical solution to much of the scaling and resource cost
problems, it offers far too much opportunity for people up-to-no-good to
be able to introduce trojans, spyware and so forth.

Setting up your own package build system and ftp site -- well, there's
nothing preventing you from doing that, but again, it's a trust thing.
Unless people can believe in the provenance of the packages you provide,
it's not going to be sensible for them to download from you.  So it's
only people that know you personally, friends, relations, workmates and
people that know and trust people willing to trust you; they would be
the initial audience for your new package building and distribution
thing.  Even if you had an enormous social circle all of whom happened
to be avid FreeBSD users, I doubt that would actually provide enough
demand to make the whole venture worthwhile.

The best ways to contribute are (a) to make a donation via the FreeBSD
Foundation and (b) take up maintainership on some ports.  As ever in any
project of this type, most of the work goes through smoothly and it's
that minority of problem ports that eat up so much of the time.
Maintained ports have fewer problems.

Some of the more paranoid amongst you may be asking yourselves if, in
the light of what I say above, you really can trust packages from
anywhere other than the official ftp.freebsd.org server.  Locations like
(for example) ftp.uk.freebsd.org (which, although blessed as an official
mirror site, is run by a completely different set of people.)  The
answer is somewhere on the 'probably -- maybe' continuum.   Can you
actually trust the people running the mirror site?  (In the case of
ftp.uk.freebsd.org, as of a day or so ago that's the UK mirror service
run by the University of Kent who are clearly of unimpeachable
reputation.)  Implementing digital signatures on packages would go a
long way to removing that uncertainty.

Cheers,

Matthew

-- 
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil.   7 Priory Courtyard
  Flat 3
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate
JID: matt...@infracaninophile.co.uk   Kent, CT11 9PW



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Unable to upgrade packages on FreeBSD

[Eduardo Morras]

At 11:42 31/01/2012, you wrote:

While your offer is made with the best of intentions, I doubt the
project would feel able take you up on it.  The problem is simply one of
security -- while crowd-sourcing package compilation would be a pretty
sweet technical solution to much of the scaling and resource cost
problems, it offers far too much opportunity for people up-to-no-good to
be able to introduce trojans, spyware and so forth.


No no, i didn't said i will make them manually, i wanted to said that 
i can add one server amd64 to the pool of automate servers that make 
the packages, i think it works automatically and distribute workload 
like boinc or other similar net. About the people which introduce 
trojans, rootkits etc... i didn't think on that issue and is really a 
very important stopper.


With the rest of your mail, i agree with you, my idea was completly 
halfthinked (is it the correct word?).



Mental Note to remember: Beside daemons, there are devils.

L 



___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Unable to upgrade packages on FreeBSD

[David Jackson]

On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 3:33 AM, Eduardo Morras  wrote:

> At 11:42 31/01/2012, you wrote:
>
>> While your offer is made with the best of intentions, I doubt the
>> project would feel able take you up on it.  The problem is simply one of
>> security -- while crowd-sourcing package compilation would be a pretty
>> sweet technical solution to much of the scaling and resource cost
>> problems, it offers far too much opportunity for people up-to-no-good to
>> be able to introduce trojans, spyware and so forth.
>>
>
> No no, i didn't said i will make them manually, i wanted to said that i
> can add one server amd64 to the pool of automate servers that make the
> packages, i think it works automatically and distribute workload like boinc
> or other similar net. About the people which introduce trojans, rootkits
> etc... i didn't think on that issue and is really a very important stopper.
>
> With the rest of your mail, i agree with you, my idea was completly
> halfthinked (is it the correct word?).
>
>
>
That security issue is a serious problem with that idea. I had thought of
this idea before and discarded it because its unworkable (the crowd
sourcing thing).

> Mental Note to remember: Beside daemons, there are devils.
>
> L
>
> __**_
> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/**mailman/listinfo/freebsd-**questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-**
> unsubscr...@freebsd.org "
>
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Unable to upgrade packages on FreeBSD

[David Jackson]

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 12:54 AM, Bernt Hansson  wrote:

> 2012-01-31 01:13, 
> freebsd-lists-erik@**erikosterholm.orgskrev:
>
>  Oh come on, guys. David is the same person who said that FreeBSD was
>> poorly documented.
>>
>> http://osdir.com/ml/freebsd-**questions/2011-12/msg00684.**html
>>
>>  I'll give him the benefit of the doubt a bit longer.
>>
>
> I do not. He is a whino. Blocked here from now on.
>
>
My posts have always been sincere. It would seem to you that anyone who
does not agree with you is whining. I would suggest it is you who have an
unreasonable attitude.


At least respect other people's right to express their views.

__**_
> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/**mailman/listinfo/freebsd-**questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-**
> unsubscr...@freebsd.org "
>
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Unable to upgrade packages on FreeBSD

[David Jackson]

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 12:51 AM, Bernt Hansson  wrote:

> 2012-01-30 18:52, David Jackson skrev:
>
>  I have tried endlessly to no avail to upgrade binary the packages on
>> Freebsd to the latest version. I have tried:
>>
>> *portupgrade -PP -a
>> *portmaster -PP -a
>> *pkg_update
>>
>> All fail miserably and totally and have left the system in an unuseable
>> state.
>>
>
> What is the error message?


They seem to have failed because they couldn't find the package on the
download site. Other errors I got were that the package it had downloaded
had an "unrecognized format".

I did not save them, there is really no way to save a copy of them unless I
copy them by hand. I will have to rerun the commands to get the error
messages and then transfer them by hand.

>
>
>  Why can't FreeBSD just make the package system "just work".
>>
>
> It's already "just works"
>
>
It does for you. I've had big problems with it.


>
>  Right after
>> installing FreeBSD I should be able to type a single command such as
>> update_packages
>>
>
> http://www.se.freebsd.org/doc/**en_US.ISO8859-1/books/**
> handbook/updating-upgrading-**freebsdupdate.html
>
>
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Unable to upgrade packages on FreeBSD

[Bernt Hansson]

2012-02-01 19:16, David Jackson skrev:


I did not save them, there is really no way to save a copy of them unless I
copy them by hand.


I take it you are new to FreeBSD. May I introduce you to script
man script(1)
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Unable to upgrade packages on FreeBSD

[Waitman Gobble]

On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 5:18 AM, Bernt Hansson  wrote:

> 2012-02-01 19:16, David Jackson skrev:
>
>
>  I did not save them, there is really no way to save a copy of them unless
>> I
>> copy them by hand.
>>
>
> I take it you are new to FreeBSD. May I introduce you to script
> man script(1)
>
> __**_
> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/**mailman/listinfo/freebsd-**questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-**
> unsubscr...@freebsd.org "
>


One thing I noticed, which may cause some trouble(?)

http://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-10-current/ is
empty, no packages. So pkg_add fails for everything...

Running 10-CURRENT I have to set PACKAGESITE
to http://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-current/Latest/

It's been years since I've run a HEAD version of FreeBSD - maybe this is
common knowledge. :)
But It seems like there could be a symlink or something.

Also, I'm still looking into it - but it seems like it would be good to
have an easy way to 'reinstall' a package.
It seems to be pretty stubborn when trying to deinstall/reinstall stuff.
For example, after i upgraded from
9.0-RELEASE to 10-CURRENT, the thing was complaining about libintl,
gettext, iconv.
pkg_add was refusing to 'reinstall' (but this might be related my own
ignorance), so I ended up
going into ports and building, then the system was fulling operational, yay.

However, it could be that these did not need to be "reinstalled". pkg_add
was telling me I already had the
latest versions installed, and when I finally got down to the meat of my
problem I found that my /etc/rc was never replaced.
Either I fat-fingered a mergemaster prompt (but I really thought I was
paying close attention), or mergemaster missed it! :)
There was no /var/tmp/temproot/etc/rc after mergemaster, and mergemaster
reported that only two files were left to do
by hand, which is what I had intended. (ie, groups, master.passwd) But
doing a diff between /usr/src/etc/rc (i think) and /etc/rc I
saw they were different,  copied the file and 10-CURRENT ran perfectly.



Waitman Gobble
San Jose California USA
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Unable to upgrade packages on FreeBSD

[Eduardo Morras]

At 19:16 01/02/2012, David Jackson wrote:



They seem to have failed because they couldn't find the package on the
download site. Other errors I got were that the package it had downloaded
had an "unrecognized format".

I did not save them, there is really no way to save a copy of them unless I
copy them by hand. I will have to rerun the commands to get the error
messages and then transfer them by hand.


In my first mail i didn't think about this, but:

In your OP you don't say the version of FreeBSD you're running. Show 
a uname -a please. Is it a RELEASE, like 8.2-RELEASEpx? If it's a 
RELEASE perhaps you don't know that the packages are frozen but all 
are known to work  without problems. Switch to -STABLE if you want 
access newer packages but perhaps there will be problems with them 
from time to time. Check -stable maillist.


HTH 



___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"