Re: Adding more syspatch platform.
On 2020-08-13 02:39, Sebastian Benoit wrote: Jordan Geoghegan(jor...@geoghegan.ca) on 2020.08.12 10:32:21 -0700: On 2020-08-12 02:08, Stuart Henderson wrote: The only proxy we have for "what is really used" is dmesg submissions. Since 6.7 release: amd64 62 i3865 arm64 3 macppc 2 octeon 1 Based on this there isn't a great case for adding any more. I didn't realize you guys used dmesg@ as a popularity gauge, I thought s/popularity/usage/ it was just for sending dmesgs for interesting/new hardware. I figured with something like Edgerouters with their standardized hardware that repeat dmesgs would just serve to irritate the devs. I personally administer more OpenBSD 6.x machines than are on that list you sent. I can start hammering dmesg@, but then I'm gonna skew your stats and In a way, you also skew the stats if you dont send dmesgs. And "you" means everyone. Do it once every 6 months (for every release) i'd say. you're gonna think that your userbase consists of a bunch of autists that unironically run macppc, sparc64 and octeon in production everywhere. In the small Canadian town I live in, I've got a big chunk of it running on OpenBSD. I've got a bunch of old 90's / 2000's i386 stuff too, so I can send dmesgs in for that too, the reason I didn't is I figured the hardware was already 'been there, done that'. If the dmesgs dont show that certain hardware is still used, the drivers for it will get deleted eventually. Another reason to show what you use. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I can afford to donate 2 octeon machines to any devs that are interested (including shipping world wide; any devs reading: please contact me if you're interested), and am also happy to help out with octeon stuff in any way I can. Obviously you guys aren't going to trust me to do anything syspatch related as I'm not a dev, but I'd at least like it to be known that there are people who care about the octeon port and who are willing make an effort for it. Regards, Jordan Okay, thanks for the info Sebastian, I'll start doing twice annual dumps to dmesg@ for all my machines. Regards, Jordan
Re: Adding more syspatch platform.
Jordan Geoghegan(jor...@geoghegan.ca) on 2020.08.12 10:32:21 -0700: > > > On 2020-08-12 02:08, Stuart Henderson wrote: > >The only proxy we have for "what is really used" is dmesg submissions. > >Since 6.7 release: > > > >amd6462 > >i386 5 > >arm643 > >macppc 2 > >octeon 1 > > > >Based on this there isn't a great case for adding any more. > > > > I didn't realize you guys used dmesg@ as a popularity gauge, I thought s/popularity/usage/ > it was just for sending dmesgs for interesting/new hardware. I figured > with something like Edgerouters with their standardized hardware that > repeat dmesgs would just serve to irritate the devs. I personally > administer more OpenBSD 6.x machines than are on that list you sent. I > can start hammering dmesg@, but then I'm gonna skew your stats and In a way, you also skew the stats if you dont send dmesgs. And "you" means everyone. Do it once every 6 months (for every release) i'd say. > you're gonna think that your userbase consists of a bunch of autists > that unironically run macppc, sparc64 and octeon in production > everywhere. In the small Canadian town I live in, I've got a big chunk > of it running on OpenBSD. I've got a bunch of old 90's / 2000's i386 > stuff too, so I can send dmesgs in for that too, the reason I didn't is > I figured the hardware was already 'been there, done that'. If the dmesgs dont show that certain hardware is still used, the drivers for it will get deleted eventually. Another reason to show what you use. > As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I can afford to donate 2 octeon > machines to any devs that are interested (including shipping world wide; > any devs reading: please contact me if you're interested), and am also > happy to help out with octeon stuff in any way I can. Obviously you guys > aren't going to trust me to do anything syspatch related as I'm not a > dev, but I'd at least like it to be known that there are people who care > about the octeon port and who are willing make an effort for it. > > Regards, > > Jordan > --
Re: Adding more syspatch platform.
Den ons 12 aug. 2020 kl 00:50 skrev Predrag Punosevac : > Theo de Raadt wrote: > > No, it is a question of which additional platform, you avoided that > > didn't you > > octeon is the only one I can think of. > I would volunteer doing the work and dedicating two octeons of mine for building syspatches for the supported releases, I have enough of them for it. -- May the most significant bit of your life be positive.
Re: Adding more syspatch platform.
On 2020-08-12 02:08, Stuart Henderson wrote: The only proxy we have for "what is really used" is dmesg submissions. Since 6.7 release: amd64 62 i3865 arm64 3 macppc 2 octeon 1 Based on this there isn't a great case for adding any more. I didn't realize you guys used dmesg@ as a popularity gauge, I thought it was just for sending dmesgs for interesting/new hardware. I figured with something like Edgerouters with their standardized hardware that repeat dmesgs would just serve to irritate the devs. I personally administer more OpenBSD 6.x machines than are on that list you sent. I can start hammering dmesg@, but then I'm gonna skew your stats and you're gonna think that your userbase consists of a bunch of autists that unironically run macppc, sparc64 and octeon in production everywhere. In the small Canadian town I live in, I've got a big chunk of it running on OpenBSD. I've got a bunch of old 90's / 2000's i386 stuff too, so I can send dmesgs in for that too, the reason I didn't is I figured the hardware was already 'been there, done that'. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I can afford to donate 2 octeon machines to any devs that are interested (including shipping world wide; any devs reading: please contact me if you're interested), and am also happy to help out with octeon stuff in any way I can. Obviously you guys aren't going to trust me to do anything syspatch related as I'm not a dev, but I'd at least like it to be known that there are people who care about the octeon port and who are willing make an effort for it. Regards, Jordan
Re: Adding more syspatch platform.
The only proxy we have for "what is really used" is dmesg submissions. Since 6.7 release: amd64 62 i3865 arm64 3 macppc 2 octeon 1 Based on this there isn't a great case for adding any more.
Re: Adding more syspatch platform.
On 2020-08-11 20:35, Theo de Raadt wrote: Jordan Geoghegan wrote: On 2020-08-11 15:50, Theo de Raadt wrote: Predrag Punosevac wrote: Theo de Raadt wrote: No, it is a question of which additional platform, you avoided that didn't you octeon is the only one I can think of. read below: if you name one that less than 100 people use, then well come on Not that it matters, but I have well over 100 users of OpenBSD on octeon for the different client sites I manage. I'd love to see syspatches for octeon, but I have no business telling you guys what to do. The people involved in building the syspatches don't even have octeons. I'd be happy to donate a couple of octeon machines if access to hardware is an issue. I'm just a random internet person, so I imagine you guys wouldn't trust me to do the work to build the syspatches, but please do let me know if some octeon machines would be useful to you guys. I'd happily do the legwork myself but there doesn't appear to be a way to manually syspatch (please correct me if I'm wrong). Regards, Jordan
Re: Adding more syspatch platform.
Jordan Geoghegan wrote: > On 2020-08-11 15:50, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > Predrag Punosevac wrote: > > > >> Theo de Raadt wrote: > >> > >>> No, it is a question of which additional platform, you avoided that > >>> didn't you > >>> > >> octeon is the only one I can think of. > > read below: > > > >>> if you name one that less than 100 people use, then well come on > > Not that it matters, but I have well over 100 users of OpenBSD on > octeon for the different client sites I manage. I'd love to see > syspatches for octeon, but I have no business telling you guys what to > do. The people involved in building the syspatches don't even have octeons.
Re: Adding more syspatch platform.
On 2020-08-11 15:50, Theo de Raadt wrote: Predrag Punosevac wrote: Theo de Raadt wrote: No, it is a question of which additional platform, you avoided that didn't you octeon is the only one I can think of. read below: if you name one that less than 100 people use, then well come on Not that it matters, but I have well over 100 users of OpenBSD on octeon for the different client sites I manage. I'd love to see syspatches for octeon, but I have no business telling you guys what to do. Regards, Jordan
Re: Adding more syspatch platform.
Predrag Punosevac wrote: > Theo de Raadt wrote: > > > > > No, it is a question of which additional platform, you avoided that > > didn't you > > > > octeon is the only one I can think of. read below: > > if you name one that less than 100 people use, then well come on
Re: Adding more syspatch platform.
Theo de Raadt wrote: > > No, it is a question of which additional platform, you avoided that > didn't you > octeon is the only one I can think of. arm64 binary patches are available for few releases already. The binary patches might be the least of the troubles on that platform. https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc=157716525114361=2 Predrag > > if you name one that less than 100 people use, then well come on > > > > > > Daniel Ouellet wrote: > > > Just a general question as I got to really love syspatch and sysupgrade > > to the point that oppose to before, now my platforms are pretty much > > always up to date and patch in just a few days after patches are release > > or even in some cases the same day. > > > > To add more platform, I guess that mean man power right, or is that an > > hardware issue? > > > > Not a complain at all, I love where we are, just a real generic question > > and if that's a hardware issue, I think there is more then that, I would > > be happy to contribute some if that help. > > > > If more then that, I apologies for the question. > > > > Many thanks for all you do! Greatly appreciated! > > > > Daniel > >
Re: Adding more syspatch platform.
No, it is a question of which additional platform, you avoided that didn't you if you name one that less than 100 people use, then well come on Daniel Ouellet wrote: > Just a general question as I got to really love syspatch and sysupgrade > to the point that oppose to before, now my platforms are pretty much > always up to date and patch in just a few days after patches are release > or even in some cases the same day. > > To add more platform, I guess that mean man power right, or is that an > hardware issue? > > Not a complain at all, I love where we are, just a real generic question > and if that's a hardware issue, I think there is more then that, I would > be happy to contribute some if that help. > > If more then that, I apologies for the question. > > Many thanks for all you do! Greatly appreciated! > > Daniel >
Adding more syspatch platform.
Just a general question as I got to really love syspatch and sysupgrade to the point that oppose to before, now my platforms are pretty much always up to date and patch in just a few days after patches are release or even in some cases the same day. To add more platform, I guess that mean man power right, or is that an hardware issue? Not a complain at all, I love where we are, just a real generic question and if that's a hardware issue, I think there is more then that, I would be happy to contribute some if that help. If more then that, I apologies for the question. Many thanks for all you do! Greatly appreciated! Daniel
