Hello,
Today I've upgraded one of my personal FreeBSD servers. It's running
FreeBSD 11.0 for a while.
While I use quarterly ports branches, I usually update my ports tree
before installing a new service and I faced some troubles:
www/node was updated from 6.x to 7.x: unfortunately my etherpad
in
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 02:15:02PM +0200, David Demelier wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Today I've upgraded one of my personal FreeBSD servers. It's running
> FreeBSD 11.0 for a while.
>
> While I use quarterly ports branches, I usually update my ports tree
> before installing a new service and I faced some
El 22 jun. 2017 14:15, "David Demelier" escribió:
Hello,
Today I've upgraded one of my personal FreeBSD servers. It's running
FreeBSD 11.0 for a while.
While I use quarterly ports branches, I usually update my ports tree
before installing a new service and I faced some troubles:
www/node was u
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 02:18:56PM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 02:15:02PM +0200, David Demelier wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Today I've upgraded one of my personal FreeBSD servers. It's running
> > FreeBSD 11.0 for a while.
> >
> > While I use quarterly ports branches,
On 2017-06-22 14:15, David Demelier wrote:
While I use quarterly ports branches, I usually update my ports tree
before installing a new service and I faced some troubles:
What works best for us, to keep a stable production, is to track the
HEAD with svn. That way we can pre-empt changes local
2017-06-22 14:18 GMT+02:00 Baptiste Daroussin :
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 02:15:02PM +0200, David Demelier wrote:
> As usual with such proposal, where do you find the manpower to handle the
> number
> of branches required (the quarterly branches are already hard to maintain, it
> is
> only one br
[Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 14:18:56 +0200, Baptiste Daroussin
wrote:
>As usual with such proposal, where do you find the manpower to handle the
>number
>of branches required (the quarterly branches are already hard to maintain, it
>is
>only one branch).
Please help me out here, Baptiste, be
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:03:33AM -0400, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
> [Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 14:18:56 +0200, Baptiste Daroussin
> wrote:
>
> >As usual with such proposal, where do you find the manpower to handle the
> >number
> >of branches required (the quarterly branches are already h
2017-06-22 16:16 GMT+02:00 Baptiste Daroussin :
> The model with one branch per release will bring it to way more with a
> maintenance window way larger (actually it is 3 month making the quarterly
> relatively easy to maintain)
So after three months if you don't switch branch, you're outdated
sin
On 2017/06/22 15:03, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
> Why don't the same choices apply here? What am I missing?
Two things:
1) It's progress in the development of the FreeBSD base system that
drives the release cycle. The general state of the ports does not exert
much influence on release freque
On 6/22/2017 10:03 AM, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
[Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 14:18:56 +0200, Baptiste Daroussin
wrote:
As usual with such proposal, where do you find the manpower to handle the number
of branches required (the quarterly branches are already hard to maintain, it is
only one
On 22.06.2017 21:26, Baho Utot wrote:
On 6/22/2017 10:03 AM, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
[Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 14:18:56 +0200, Baptiste Daroussin
wrote:
As usual with such proposal, where do you find the manpower to handle
the number
of branches required (the quarterly branches are al
[Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 15:38:53 +0100, Matthew Seaman
wrote:
>On 2017/06/22 15:03, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
>> Why don't the same choices apply here? What am I missing?
>
>Two things:
>
> 1) It's progress in the development of the FreeBSD base system that
>drives the release cycle. T
On 22/6/17 10:16 pm, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:03:33AM -0400, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
[Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 14:18:56 +0200, Baptiste Daroussin
wrote:
As usual with such proposal, where do you find the manpower to handle the number
of branches required (t
On 6/22/2017 11:30 AM, Torsten Zuehlsdorff wrote:
On 22.06.2017 21:26, Baho Utot wrote:
On 6/22/2017 10:03 AM, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
[Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 14:18:56 +0200, Baptiste Daroussin
wrote:
As usual with such proposal, where do you find the manpower to
handle the numbe
On 22.06.2017 21:56, Baho Utot wrote:
On 6/22/2017 11:30 AM, Torsten Zuehlsdorff wrote:
On 22.06.2017 21:26, Baho Utot wrote:
On 6/22/2017 10:03 AM, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
[Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 14:18:56 +0200, Baptiste Daroussin
wrote:
As usual with such proposal, where do you
On 22/6/17 11:50 pm, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
[Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 15:38:53 +0100, Matthew Seaman
wrote:
On 2017/06/22 15:03, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
Why don't the same choices apply here? What am I missing?
Two things:
1) It's progress in the development of the FreeBSD b
[Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 17:30:10 +0200, Torsten Zuehlsdorff
wrote:
>I regularly seeing admins setting up different Ubuntu versions, because
>at one you have PHP 7 and on the other MySQL 5.7, but not both at the
>same Ubuntu version.
Which is one of the nice things about having central de
On 2017/06/22 20:56, Baho Utot wrote:
> One could still use releng 11.0 ports with 10.3 OS could they not
No, not in general.
You've got it the wrong way round.
You might get away with releng 10.3 ports and 11.0 OS for a while but it
will likely cause you grief when you do run afoul of a necessa
[Default] On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 00:01:45 +0800, Julian Elischer
wrote:
>I've had this conversation with ports several times, But the requirements
>of 'business' is not their interest. In fact i was told several times,
>"Don't use our quarterly packages, make your own with poudriere".
>(which make
[Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:16:44 +0200, Baptiste Daroussin
wrote:
>The model with one branch per release will bring it to way more with a
>maintenance window way larger
It would indeed! Factor of 3, I think.
But I'm really not suggesting that, I'm suggesting that a better
schedule wou
On 06/22/2017 08:53, Julian Elischer wrote:
Yeah but the quarterly branches are relatively useless because they a
not sync'd to anything and mean nothing special to anyone.
They are not useless to me.
I maintain a fair number of different package repositories for various
purposes. Over a long
On 06/22/2017 09:16, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
I can't help feeling that there's something very wrong when
people for whom the system is a tool rather than a plaything have
to work around the choices made by the "official" developers.
I'd say this is true no matter what OS you use these days.
On Thu, 2017-06-22 at 10:43 -0700, Dave Hayes wrote:
> They are not useless to me.
>
> I maintain a fair number of different package repositories for
> various
> purposes. Over a long period of time I've found that trying to build
> from HEAD is a random crapshoot as to whether everything you wa
On 06/22/2017 11:43, demelier.da...@gmail.com wrote:
Let me use my example of www/node back. I have built the port www/node
in poudriere using this origin (so no version). At the time I've built
it it was a 6.x version. When I upgraded my machine, www/node has
switched to 7.x version and since th
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 12:32:45PM -0400, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
> My problem is that my industry experience tells me that reducing
> the frequency of port releases is practically *guaranteed* to be
> a Really Good Thing for everyone.
I remember before we had the quarterly releases, and peopl
[Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:11:26 -0500, Mark Linimon
wrote:
>On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 12:32:45PM -0400, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
>> My problem is that my industry experience tells me that reducing
>> the frequency of port releases is practically *guaranteed* to be
>> a Really Good Thing f
scratch65...@att.net wrote on 2017/06/23 00:15:
[Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:11:26 -0500, Mark Linimon
wrote:
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 12:32:45PM -0400, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
My problem is that my industry experience tells me that reducing
the frequency of port releases is practicall
On 6/22/2017 6:36 PM, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
scratch65...@att.net wrote on 2017/06/23 00:15:
[Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:11:26 -0500, Mark Linimon
wrote:
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 12:32:45PM -0400, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
My problem is that my industry experience tells me that reduci
On 22/06/2017 15:50, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
[Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 15:38:53 +0100, Matthew Seaman
wrote:
On 2017/06/22 15:03, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
Why don't the same choices apply here? What am I missing?
Two things:
1) It's progress in the development of the FreeBSD
On 22/06/2017 23:16, Baho Utot wrote:
On 6/22/2017 6:36 PM, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
scratch65...@att.net wrote on 2017/06/23 00:15:
[Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:11:26 -0500, Mark Linimon
wrote:
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 12:32:45PM -0400, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
My problem is that my
On 6/22/2017 8:31 PM, Grzegorz Junka wrote:
On 22/06/2017 23:16, Baho Utot wrote:
On 6/22/2017 6:36 PM, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
scratch65...@att.net wrote on 2017/06/23 00:15:
[Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:11:26 -0500, Mark Linimon
wrote:
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 12:32:45PM -0400, scra
Hi!
> Mark, I can only suppose that those complainers are dilettantes
> of some sort who believe that having The Latest-And-Greatest Bits
> is a social-status enhancer. **Nobody** with real work to do
> ever willingly fools away time "fixing" what isn't broken.
There's a blog post from one of th
On 23/6/17 6:36 am, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
scratch65...@att.net wrote on 2017/06/23 00:15:
[Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:11:26 -0500, Mark Linimon
wrote:
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 12:32:45PM -0400, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
My problem is that my industry experience tells me that reducing
On 23/6/17 10:39 am, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
Hi!
Mark, I can only suppose that those complainers are dilettantes
of some sort who believe that having The Latest-And-Greatest Bits
is a social-status enhancer. **Nobody** with real work to do
ever willingly fools away time "fixing" what isn't broken.
On 23/6/17 2:57 am, Dave Hayes wrote:
On 06/22/2017 11:43, demelier.da...@gmail.com wrote:
Let me use my example of www/node back. I have built the port www/node
in poudriere using this origin (so no version). At the time I've built
it it was a 6.x version. When I upgraded my machine, www/node h
On 23/6/17 7:28 am, Grzegorz Junka wrote:
On 22/06/2017 15:50, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
[Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 15:38:53 +0100, Matthew Seaman
wrote:
On 2017/06/22 15:03, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
Why don't the same choices apply here? What am I missing?
Two things:
1) It's
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 11:58:14AM +0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
> What we want is:
> A "recent" starting point for our next project/upgrade to start from
> and an ongoing version of that, which will get critical fixes only for
> at LEAST 2 years, probably 5.
> The key here is the *_*critical fixes
On 23/6/17 12:39 pm, Mark Linimon wrote:
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 11:58:14AM +0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
What we want is:
A "recent" starting point for our next project/upgrade to start from
and an ongoing version of that, which will get critical fixes only for
at LEAST 2 years, probably 5.
The
Hi!
> > There's a blog post from one of the folks that explains the
> > idea behind that 'fast update' mode of operations, and yes,
> > he's doing real work.
> > http://blog.koehntopp.info/index.php/1776-rolling-out-patches-and-changes-often-and-fast/
> That is ONE kind of installation.
Well, t
On 23/6/17 1:23 pm, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
Hi!
There's a blog post from one of the folks that explains the
idea behind that 'fast update' mode of operations, and yes,
he's doing real work.
http://blog.koehntopp.info/index.php/1776-rolling-out-patches-and-changes-often-and-fast/
That is ONE kind of
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 01:36:26PM +0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
> The problem is that such a set of sponsored branches does not exist so
> knowing who'd sign up and who would't is just guesswork
And that's why neither myself or the other people who have in the past
considered such a business have
You didn't read (or ignored) the last half of my post.
Whatever.
I'll go back to what I was doing before, e.g., cleaning up other people's
messes. Your first two guesses of "what type of commit bits made the
messes" don't count.
mcl
___
freebsd-ports@
On Thu, 2017-06-22 at 11:57 -0700, Dave Hayes wrote:
> Would you agree that release branches would be unnecessary if
> somehow
> you could select the version of node that the ports tree builds via
> some
> (as yet unspecified) mechanism?
I've also think about that but I'm not sure if it's easier
On Fri, 2017-06-23 at 00:31 +, Grzegorz Junka wrote:
> A user would probably start with precompiled packages. Only power
> users
> who know what they are doing would try to compile the packages
> themselves, and at that point I would expect them to know a thing or
> two
> about verifying tha
On 2017-06-23 10:26, demelier.da...@gmail.com wrote:
Release branches won't have many maintenance except individual bug
fixes when security advisories are found. No backport, no updates.
Nothing prevents the maintainers from doing exactly that right now. But
you see, there are two kinds of po
On Thu, 2017-06-22 at 16:11 -0500, Mark Linimon wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 12:32:45PM -0400, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
> > My problem is that my industry experience tells me that reducing
> > the frequency of port releases is practically *guaranteed* to be
> > a Really Good Thing for everyo
On 06/23/17 10:26, demelier.da...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 2017-06-22 at 11:57 -0700, Dave Hayes wrote:
Would you agree that release branches would be unnecessary if
somehow
you could select the version of node that the ports tree builds via
some
(as yet unspecified) mechanism?
I've also think
On 06/23/17 09:47, demelier.da...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-06-22 at 16:11 -0500, Mark Linimon wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 12:32:45PM -0400, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
>>> My problem is that my industry experience tells me that reducing
>>> the frequency of port releases is practically
On Fri, 2017-06-23 at 10:38 +0200, Vlad K. wrote:
> But again, that's all doable without having to introduce new
> infrastructure. The ports tree as is can be maintained like this and
> quarterly repos would NOT be required. All it's needed is for
> maintainers to keep a stable version and a lat
On 2017-06-23 11:35, demelier.da...@gmail.com wrote:
Release branches do not need backports.
I think we have different concepts of "backport" here. I'm not talking
about backports as defined by debian backports repository. I'm talking
about taking a piece of code from NEWER version and turni
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 22:03:35 -0400
Baho Utot wrote:
> The pre-compiled packages is what drove me to build the entire system
> as it gave me a broken system that would not work and upon getting it
> to function would/**/spontaneous reboot. My hand built packages
> stopped that.
>
> I have built
On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 00:36:19 +0200, Miroslav Lachman
<000.f...@quip.cz> wrote:
>scratch65...@att.net wrote on 2017/06/23 00:15:
>> [Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:11:26 -0500, Mark Linimon
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 12:32:45PM -0400, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
My problem is t
On 06/23/17 07:48, RW via freebsd-ports wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 22:03:35 -0400
Baho Utot wrote:
The pre-compiled packages is what drove me to build the entire system
as it gave me a broken system that would not work and upon getting it
to function would/**/spontaneous reboot. My hand bui
On Jun 23 08:02, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 00:36:19 +0200, Miroslav Lachman
<000.f...@quip.cz> wrote:
scratch65...@att.net wrote on 2017/06/23 00:15:
[Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:11:26 -0500, Mark Linimon
wrote:
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 12:32:45PM -0400, scratch65..
On 06/23/17 04:53, Guido Falsi wrote:
On 06/23/17 10:26, demelier.da...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 2017-06-22 at 11:57 -0700, Dave Hayes wrote:
Would you agree that release branches would be unnecessary if
somehow
you could select the version of node that the ports tree builds via
some
(as yet
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 01:09:26AM -0500, Mark Linimon wrote:
> I'll go back to what I was doing before
This was an unkind comment and I should not have made it. My
apologies to all.
mcl
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.
On 06/23/17 15:11, Baho Utot wrote:
>
>
> On 06/23/17 04:53, Guido Falsi wrote:
>> On 06/23/17 10:26, demelier.da...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2017-06-22 at 11:57 -0700, Dave Hayes wrote:
Would you agree that release branches would be unnecessary if
somehow
you could select the
On 06/23/17 10:53, Guido Falsi wrote:
> On 06/23/17 10:26, demelier.da...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 2017-06-22 at 11:57 -0700, Dave Hayes wrote:
>>> Would you agree that release branches would be unnecessary if
>>> somehow
>>> you could select the version of node that the ports tree builds via
>>
On 06/23/17 10:30, Guido Falsi wrote:
On 06/23/17 15:11, Baho Utot wrote:
On 06/23/17 04:53, Guido Falsi wrote:
On 06/23/17 10:26, demelier.da...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 2017-06-22 at 11:57 -0700, Dave Hayes wrote:
Would you agree that release branches would be unnecessary if
somehow
you
On 23/06/2017 03:58, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 23/6/17 6:36 am, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
scratch65...@att.net wrote on 2017/06/23 00:15:
[Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:11:26 -0500, Mark Linimon
wrote:
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 12:32:45PM -0400, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
My problem is that
On 23/6/17 4:38 pm, Vlad K. wrote:
On 2017-06-23 10:26, demelier.da...@gmail.com wrote:
Release branches won't have many maintenance except individual bug
fixes when security advisories are found. No backport, no updates.
Nothing prevents the maintainers from doing exactly that right now.
Bu
On 23/6/17 11:47 pm, Grzegorz Junka wrote:
On 23/06/2017 03:58, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 23/6/17 6:36 am, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
scratch65...@att.net wrote on 2017/06/23 00:15:
[Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:11:26 -0500, Mark Linimon
wrote:
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 12:32:45PM -0400, scra
On 23/06/2017 12:32, Baho Utot wrote:
On 06/23/17 07:48, RW via freebsd-ports wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 22:03:35 -0400
Baho Utot wrote:
The pre-compiled packages is what drove me to build the entire system
as it gave me a broken system that would not work and upon getting it
to function w
Can't you just create the branch yourself? It's open source. You just
clone it and can keep it in Github for free. Then you can apply
security patches to just the applications you need yourself. If it's
too difficult you can hire people to apply just specific patches.
With Github pull request
Julian Elischer wrote:
(*) From my experience, the best way to cope with openssl is to have
everything link with
the system openssl and issue security upgrades to the base OS that
upgrades that when there is a need.
(this may change, but it's been my experience so far).
Agree on previous pa
On 2017-06-23 23:09, Grzegorz Junka wrote:
Fine. Considering that maintainers already apply patches to the latest
quarterly branch. If there were to be OS version branches, it would
mean that maintainers apart from what they are doing now would
additionally need to apply selected patches to thos
Matt Smith wrote:
I use FreeBSD *precisely* because it mostly keeps up with the latest
stable versions of things. I have postfix 3.2, pgsql 9.6, nginx 1.13,
libressl 2.5 etc. It's usually impossible to do this with linux unless
you install things directly from source.
And me I came to FreeB
> Am 23.06.2017 um 23:53 schrieb Michelle Sullivan :
>
> Matt Smith wrote:
>>
>> I use FreeBSD *precisely* because it mostly keeps up with the latest stable
>> versions of things. I have postfix 3.2, pgsql 9.6, nginx 1.13, libressl 2.5
>> etc. It's usually impossible to do this with linux unle
from Vlad K:
> On 2017-06-23 23:09, Grzegorz Junka wrote:
> > Fine. Considering that maintainers already apply patches to the latest
> > quarterly branch. If there were to be OS version branches, it would
> > mean that maintainers apart from what they are doing now would
> > additionally need to
Fine. Considering that maintainers already apply patches to the latest
quarterly branch. If there were to be OS version branches, it would
mean that maintainers apart from what they are doing now would
additionally need to apply selected patches to those OS version
branches?
"OS version branche
> > I personally can't see the rationale of many OS version branches of ports:
> > far too much work.
> > I had the thought of something like that for (NetBSD) pkgsrc: a very tall
> > order, considering that pkgsrc has been ported to many OSes besides NetBSD.
> > Imagine a separate branch of pk
Martin Waschbüsch wrote:
Am 23.06.2017 um 23:53 schrieb Michelle Sullivan :
Matt Smith wrote:
I use FreeBSD *precisely* because it mostly keeps up with the latest stable
versions of things. I have postfix 3.2, pgsql 9.6, nginx 1.13, libressl 2.5
etc. It's usually impossible to do this with li
Are there any advantages of using pkg instead of pkgsrc on FreeBSD?
Instead of having branches by OS version, would having ports LTS branches
independent of the base system be a better solution?
Grzegorz
It looks like you might have misunderstood something I said about pkgsrc.
I use pkg with F
On 06/23/2017 01:53, Guido Falsi wrote:
If your model works fine I'm quite sure the FreeBSD community and
project will be quite happy to embrace it.
...
> I cannot think of a better way to show there actually is no manpower
problem than creating a working example of such a workflow maintained b
On 06/26/17 00:32, Dave Hayes wrote:
> On 06/23/2017 01:53, Guido Falsi wrote:
>> If your model works fine I'm quite sure the FreeBSD community and
>> project will be quite happy to embrace it.
> ...
>> I cannot think of a better way to show there actually is no manpower
> problem than creating a w
On 06/26/17 09:27, Guido Falsi wrote:
> I'd say the difficult part in such a problem is not in the idea but in
> the boring details of it's implementation and long term maintenance.
>
I forgot one important piece of information:
Any project that requires full dedication from all committers to a
Hi!
> Thus, in some cases, people demand or insist because they want something
> they either cannot accomplish themselves, or cannot accomplish in the
> limited time they have. As far as I have observed, you can't even -pay-
> the ports experts to do something you might want.
You can discuss t
> On 26. Jun 2017, at 9:43 AM, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
>
>> Thus, in some cases, people demand or insist because they want something
>> they either cannot accomplish themselves, or cannot accomplish in the
>> limited time they have. As far as I have observed, you can't even -pay-
>> the ports expe
Aloha David,
I think the current process of having rolling-releases packages makes
unpredictable upgrades as we have to manually check if the upgrade
will be fine or not. When a user installs FreeBSD 11.0 on its system,
it probably expects that everything will work fine until a next major
upgrad
On 26/06/2017 07:24, Torsten Zuehlsdorff wrote:
Aloha David,
I think the current process of having rolling-releases packages makes
unpredictable upgrades as we have to manually check if the upgrade
will be fine or not. When a user installs FreeBSD 11.0 on its system,
it probably expects that ev
On 06/26/2017 00:27, Guido Falsi wrote:
I only partly agree with what you say, but anyway insisting on the
mailing lists with individual committers, and defending a general idea
ignoring all the details, dismissing the actual problems in the detailed
implementation that are raised by committers i
from Dewayne Geraghty:
> Synth is very good. It builds upon pkg and is way less complicated that
> poudriere.
> Unfortunately John Marino was unceremoniously removed from committing to
> FreeBSD, and its is uncertain whether he'll continue to support synth on
> FreeBSD. (He supports DragonflyB
"Thomas Mueller" wrote:
> from Dewayne Geraghty:
>
> > Synth is very good. It builds upon pkg and is way less complicated that
> > poudriere.
I dont know the relative dependencies counts for both synth & poudriere,
but I suspect synth is bigger ?
( I have a messed up current here where loads o
[Default] On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 19:33:50 +, Grzegorz Junka
wrote:
>we could
>start small with a just a handful of ports in a stable LTS (Long Term
>Support) branch. Develop processes around maintaining them, get some
>feedback about the effort of applying only security fixes, then add more
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 09:24:31AM -0400, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
> The number of ports to build a server-of-all-work is not large.
Now the problem is getting people to agree on exactly what that
subset is.
If there is interest, I can provide the examples and code I use
whenever I start up a
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 07:37:22AM +, Thomas Mueller wrote:
> It seems NetBSD pkgsrc people are not catching on, preferring to stay
> with the clumsy pkgsrc tools: creatures of habit, reluctant to change.
Remember that NetBSD runs on dozens of targets*, of which only two support
Ada AFAIK.
mc
[Default] On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 12:45:34 -0500, Mark Linimon
wrote:
>On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 09:24:31AM -0400, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
>> The number of ports to build a server-of-all-work is not large.
>
>Now the problem is getting people to agree on exactly what that
>subset is.
Since that's
from Mark Linimon:
> Remember that NetBSD runs on dozens of targets*, of which only two support
> Ada AFAIK.
> mcl
> * http://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/NetBSD-7.1/
I follow http://releng.netbsd.org/cgi-bin/builds.cgi
which shows 72 targets for HEAD, 67 targets for netbsd-7 and netbsd-8, 60
ta
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 09:01:39PM +, Thomas Mueller wrote:
> raising the possibility of building for other targets.
Which is very much not hardly even the same as "they are being resistant
to change". In fact, about as far away from it as is possible to get.
"techinically possible" != "feas
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 04:53:36PM -0400, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
> Since that's what I integrate for my dev use, I'd be happy to
> take a zero'th-order cut at defining it, if nobody else wants to.
Fine. See http://www.lonesome.com/FreeBSD/poudriere/subsets/ for what
I use. I'm not particula
On 27/06/2017 17:45, Mark Linimon wrote:
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 09:24:31AM -0400, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
The number of ports to build a server-of-all-work is not large.
Now the problem is getting people to agree on exactly what that
subset is.
I think this part is fairly easy. We can s
from Mark Linimon:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 09:01:39PM +, Thomas Mueller wrote:
> > raising the possibility of building for other targets.
> Which is very much not hardly even the same as "they are being resistant
> to change". In fact, about as far away from it as is possible to get.
> "t
On 26.06.2017 21:33, Grzegorz Junka wrote:
On 26/06/2017 07:24, Torsten Zuehlsdorff wrote:
Aloha David,
I think the current process of having rolling-releases packages makes
unpredictable upgrades as we have to manually check if the upgrade
will be fine or not. When a user installs FreeBSD 11.
On 27.06.2017 15:24, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
[Default] On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 19:33:50 +, Grzegorz Junka
wrote:
we could
start small with a just a handful of ports in a stable LTS (Long Term
Support) branch. Develop processes around maintaining them, get some
feedback about the effort of
On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 18:16:01 -0500, Mark Linimon
wrote:
>On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 04:53:36PM -0400, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
>> Since that's what I integrate for my dev use, I'd be happy to
>> take a zero'th-order cut at defining it, if nobody else wants to.
>
>Fine. See http://www.lonesome.co
Hallo Julian H. Stacey,
> But if one stands on a broken system & needs to recover, some simple
> stock cc & sh tool/procedure with no dependencies is attractive, even if
> one has to coble something ones self.
I agree.
maybe you like to try:
$ less /usr/ports/ports-mgmt/pkg_jail/files/README
kin
97 matches
Mail list logo
