On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:44:10 -0800, "C Hutchinson"
wrote:
>> I trained as a clinical psychologist, not in computer science or
>> ee. We learned that adults are notoriously resistant to change
>This is a very astute observation. One I recognized as an absolute;
>some two and a half decades ago,
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 07:31:10 -0500 wrote
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 17:46:15 +0100, Kurt Jaeger
> wrote:
>
> >Hi!
>
> Moin!
>
> >
> >> On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 17:26:00 +0100, Kurt Jaeger wrote
> >> >Getting the ports/pkg tree moving with the velocity necessary
> >> >to cope with the fast-changing worl
[Default] On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 15:30:11 +0100, Michelle Sullivan
wrote:
>scratch65...@att.net wrote:
>>
>> Developing the original packaging scheme would take some
>> top-notch engineering.
>>
>
>If you're talking the pkg_* tools - already have them working with
>later/patched software here... (
Grzegorz Junka wrote:
On Linux companies contribute drivers and dedicated applications and
it's a win-win situation. More drivers mean people can more easily
re-use their hardware that they bought for Windows, and more happy
users means companies are contributing more drivers.
Maybe the fa
scratch65...@att.net wrote:
Developing the original packaging scheme would take some
top-notch engineering.
If you're talking the pkg_* tools - already have them working with
later/patched software here... (In fact my ports tree now has some
packages more up to date than the FreeBSD one...
[Default] On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 15:11:06 +0100, Kurt Jaeger
wrote:
>Hi!
Moin!
>
>> >> But it's the velocity that's the problem, Kurt.
>
>> >While I very much sympathize with "The world rotates too fast,
>> >I want to get off", for me it looks like as a project we do
>> >not have alternatives.
Mark Linimon wrote:
On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 09:51:41AM +0100, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
Tell me What is the reason for me upgrading those few production
servers from 9.3 to 10/11?... bearing in mind the following:
There isn't any ... oh, except for no new security updates.
But that's the
On 11/02/2017 15:15, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 15:02:42 +0100, Kurt Jaeger
wrote:
Hi!
And is the "keeping up with" working, Mark? Are we regaining
share from Linux? No. We're continuing to lose.
How do you measure that ?
Mostly I compare penetration of servers at
On 11/02/2017 12:31, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 17:46:15 +0100, Kurt Jaeger
wrote:
Hi!
Moin!
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 17:26:00 +0100, Kurt Jaeger wrote
Getting the ports/pkg tree moving with the velocity necessary
to cope with the fast-changing world, sometimes things break
On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 09:51:41AM +0100, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
> Tell me What is the reason for me upgrading those few production
> servers from 9.3 to 10/11?... bearing in mind the following:
There isn't any ... oh, except for no new security updates.
The flip side is the more important
On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 10:15:41AM -0500, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 15:02:42 +0100, Kurt Jaeger
> wrote:
>
> >Hi!
> >
> >> And is the "keeping up with" working, Mark? Are we regaining
> >> share from Linux? No. We're continuing to lose.
> >
> >How do you measure that
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 15:02:42 +0100, Kurt Jaeger
wrote:
>Hi!
>
>> And is the "keeping up with" working, Mark? Are we regaining
>> share from Linux? No. We're continuing to lose.
>
>How do you measure that ?
Mostly I compare penetration of servers at web-hosting sites,
availability of applic
Hi!
> >> But it's the velocity that's the problem, Kurt.
> >While I very much sympathize with "The world rotates too fast,
> >I want to get off", for me it looks like as a project we do
> >not have alternatives.
>
> Why not? What would happen to fBSD that's not already happening?
Maybe if ot
Hi!
> And is the "keeping up with" working, Mark? Are we regaining
> share from Linux? No. We're continuing to lose.
How do you measure that ?
--
p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372 3 years to go !
___
freebsd-ports@
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 15:18:49 -0600, Mark Linimon
wrote:
>On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 08:17:31AM -0500, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
>> A good rule of thumb from industry in the case of major software
>> would be "forever", meaning until it's very unlikely that anyone
>> is still using it because of ha
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 17:46:15 +0100, Kurt Jaeger
wrote:
>Hi!
Moin!
>
>> On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 17:26:00 +0100, Kurt Jaeger wrote
>> >Getting the ports/pkg tree moving with the velocity necessary
>> >to cope with the fast-changing world, sometimes things break
>> >and we all try to prevent this. Som
Mark Linimon wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 11:02:41PM +0100, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
Or the last strong hold you have - the server owners - get so p**sed off in
reality they can't keep up with the OS updates that they migrate away...
So we should give up on EFI, 4k drives, and SSD?
Not what
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 11:02:41PM +0100, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
> Or the last strong hold you have - the server owners - get so p**sed off in
> reality they can't keep up with the OS updates that they migrate away...
So we should give up on EFI, 4k drives, and SSD?
mcl
Mark Linimon wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 08:17:31AM -0500, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
A good rule of thumb from industry in the case of major software
would be "forever", meaning until it's very unlikely that anyone
is still using it because of hardware obsolescence, etc.
(Sigh.) And how m
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 08:17:31AM -0500, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
> A good rule of thumb from industry in the case of major software
> would be "forever", meaning until it's very unlikely that anyone
> is still using it because of hardware obsolescence, etc.
(Sigh.) And how many people do you
Hi!
> On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 17:26:00 +0100, Kurt Jaeger wrote
> >Getting the ports/pkg tree moving with the velocity necessary
> >to cope with the fast-changing world, sometimes things break
> >and we all try to prevent this. Sometimes, mistakes happen...
>
> But it's the velocity that's the problem
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 10:09:35 -0500, Steve Wills
wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On 02/08/2017 12:34, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
>>
>> I *did* check for bug reports. I did a search on "utimenstat"
>> and found exactly one, which had been withdrawn as not being a
>> bug.
>>
>> But it *is* a bug. It's a bug on
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 17:26:00 +0100, Kurt Jaeger wrote
>Getting the ports/pkg tree moving with the velocity necessary
>to cope with the fast-changing world, sometimes things break
>and we all try to prevent this. Sometimes, mistakes happen...
But it's the velocity that's the problem, Kurt.
Do yo
On 02/09/17 16:44, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
> Why don't add some check in to "pkg" to deny (or warn user) upgrade or
> install on unsupported / EOLed system?
> Just check version on current system against some metadata info in
> repository.
Actually the metadata should be in the package, rather tha
> On 9 Feb 2017, at 6:03 PM, Steve Wills wrote:
>
> Just because you don't use any features of the newer version doesn't
> mean it's safe to run binaries built for the newer version on the older
> version, as far as I understand it.
True. :)
Yet the reports are for missing symbols in pkg and
On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 04:42:45PM +, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> Why do you think it is not being enforced? Forwards compatibility means
> that during the lifetime of a major branch you can only *add* symbols to
> the system shared libraries, not remove them nor modify any existing
> symbols. Th
Hi,
On 02/09/2017 12:00, Franco Fichtner wrote:
>
> Let me try another way:
>
> Since pkg has feature macros for building correctly on different
> FreeBSD versions, namely 10.0, 10.1, 10.2 and 10.3, the way to
> provide binaries without missing symbols is to build pkg with a
> fixed set of featu
Hi,
On 02/09/2017 11:44, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
> Why don't add some check in to "pkg" to deny (or warn user) upgrade or
> install on unsupported / EOLed system?
> Just check version on current system against some metadata info in
> repository.
I would be happy to see a patch that showed how thi
> On 9 Feb 2017, at 5:53 PM, Steve Wills wrote:
>
> What would enforcement look like? Something like "Sorry, you can't pkg
> update because this system isn't supported any more."? But how would
> that be possible without also breaking things for those who build/ship
> their own OS and packages?
> On 9 Feb 2017, at 5:53 PM, Steve Wills wrote:
>
> What would enforcement look like? Something like "Sorry, you can't pkg
> update because this system isn't supported any more."? But how would
> that be possible without also breaking things for those who build/ship
> their own OS and packages?
On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 05:26:00PM +0100, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 04:30:20PM +0100, Franco Fichtner wrote:
> > > FreeBSD package management makes an ABI promise in the form of
> > > "FreeBSD:10:amd64", but not even pkg code itself adheres to this,
> > > and thus we h
Hi,
On 02/09/2017 11:24, Franco Fichtner wrote:
>
>> On 9 Feb 2017, at 5:21 PM, Steve Wills wrote:
>>
>> We provide backwards compatibility, not forwards compatibility.
>
> But don't you see that users won't know this?
Users who don't know their software is no longer supported and refuse to
up
Kurt Jaeger wrote on 2017/02/09 17:26:
Hi!
On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 04:30:20PM +0100, Franco Fichtner wrote:
FreeBSD package management makes an ABI promise in the form of
"FreeBSD:10:amd64", but not even pkg code itself adheres to this,
and thus we have had subtle and yet fatal breakage in 10.
On 2017/02/09 16:24, Franco Fichtner wrote:
>> On 9 Feb 2017, at 5:21 PM, Steve Wills wrote:
>>
>> We provide backwards compatibility, not forwards compatibility.
> But don't you see that users won't know this?
Forward compatibility has been the ABI stability guarantee basically
ever since there
Hi!
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 04:30:20PM +0100, Franco Fichtner wrote:
> > FreeBSD package management makes an ABI promise in the form of
> > "FreeBSD:10:amd64", but not even pkg code itself adheres to this,
> > and thus we have had subtle and yet fatal breakage in 10.2 and 10.3.
> Stop spreading
> On 9 Feb 2017, at 5:21 PM, Steve Wills wrote:
>
> We provide backwards compatibility, not forwards compatibility.
But don't you see that users won't know this?
This is a good theory, yet it is difficult in practice because it is
not being enforced.
Cheers,
Franco
__
> On 9 Feb 2017, at 5:21 PM, Steve Wills wrote:
>
> We provide backwards compatibility, not forwards compatibility.
But don't you see that users won't know this?
This is a good theory, yet it is difficult in practice because it is
not being enforced.
Cheers,
Franco
__
Hi,
On 02/09/2017 11:14, Franco Fichtner wrote:
>
> You're contradicting yourself here. Either it's compatible or it isn't?
>
Not at all. There's a difference between backwards compatibility (binary
built on older release works on newer release) and forwards
compatibility (binary built on newe
> On 9 Feb 2017, at 5:12 PM, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 04:30:20PM +0100, Franco Fichtner wrote:
>> FreeBSD package management makes an ABI promise in the form of
>> "FreeBSD:10:amd64", but not even pkg code itself adheres to this,
>> and thus we have had subtle and y
On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 04:30:20PM +0100, Franco Fichtner wrote:
> FreeBSD package management makes an ABI promise in the form of
> "FreeBSD:10:amd64", but not even pkg code itself adheres to this,
> and thus we have had subtle and yet fatal breakage in 10.2 and 10.3.
Stop spreading FUD. There is n
Hi,
On 02/09/2017 11:01, Franco Fichtner wrote:
>
>> On 9 Feb 2017, at 4:47 PM, Steve Wills wrote:
>>
>> They're supposed to upgrade to a supported version of FreeBSD.
>
> pkg won't refuse the upgrade. And at least if it upgraded, it
> should not break itself.
Even if the update of pkg were d
> On 9 Feb 2017, at 4:47 PM, Steve Wills wrote:
>
> They're supposed to upgrade to a supported version of FreeBSD.
pkg won't refuse the upgrade. And at least if it upgraded, it
should not break itself.
Imagine a GUI-driven appliance being bricked. There is nobody
who can tell it "fetch ports
Hi,
On 02/09/2017 10:30, Franco Fichtner wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
>> On 9 Feb 2017, at 4:09 PM, Steve Wills wrote:
>>
>> Ports and packages are maintained on the assumption that the user is
>> using a supported version of the OS. We didn't decide when to end
>> support for 10.1 or 10.2. How long aft
Hi Steve,
> On 9 Feb 2017, at 4:09 PM, Steve Wills wrote:
>
> Ports and packages are maintained on the assumption that the user is
> using a supported version of the OS. We didn't decide when to end
> support for 10.1 or 10.2. How long after the end of life for 10.1 would
> you have ports mainta
Hi,
On 02/09/2017 03:55, Franco Fichtner wrote:
>
>> On 9 Feb 2017, at 9:49 AM, Kirill Ponomarev wrote:
>>
>> I don't understand all critics I see in this thread and in your mail,
>> the fate of this project is all in your hands - try to contribute more,
>
> I'm going to stop you right there.
>
Hi,
On 02/08/2017 12:34, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
>
> I *did* check for bug reports. I did a search on "utimenstat"
> and found exactly one, which had been withdrawn as not being a
> bug.
>
> But it *is* a bug. It's a bug on several levels, the most
> significant of which is that the overl
> On 9 Feb 2017, at 10:03 AM, Kirill Ponomarev wrote:
>
> On 02/09, Franco Fichtner wrote:
>>
>>> On 9 Feb 2017, at 9:49 AM, Kirill Ponomarev wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't understand all critics I see in this thread and in your mail,
>>> the fate of this project is all in your hands - try to contrib
On 02/09, Franco Fichtner wrote:
>
> > On 9 Feb 2017, at 9:49 AM, Kirill Ponomarev wrote:
> >
> > I don't understand all critics I see in this thread and in your mail,
> > the fate of this project is all in your hands - try to contribute more,
>
> I'm going to stop you right there.
>
> That's
> On 9 Feb 2017, at 9:49 AM, Kirill Ponomarev wrote:
>
> I don't understand all critics I see in this thread and in your mail,
> the fate of this project is all in your hands - try to contribute more,
I'm going to stop you right there.
That's not entirely true. Too few committers, substantial
On 02/08, list-freebsd-po...@jyborn.se wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 12:34:36PM -0500, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
> > For those people (I'm one) long version lifespans and bug-free
> > operation is a much bigger desideratum than winning the secret
> > race (I presume there is some kind of secr
On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 12:34:36PM -0500, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
> For those people (I'm one) long version lifespans and bug-free
> operation is a much bigger desideratum than winning the secret
> race (I presume there is some kind of secret race going on, since
> otherwise the crazy scheduli
On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 14:43:25 +, Matthew Seaman
wrote:
>On 02/08/17 11:56, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
>> So, what's the deal here? To "encourage" people to upgrade, pkg
>> will break their existing install? That is both hostile and
>> deeply arrogant!
>
>mat's response is more exasperation t
On 02/08/17 11:56, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
> So, what's the deal here? To "encourage" people to upgrade, pkg
> will break their existing install? That is both hostile and
> deeply arrogant!
mat's response is more exasperation than anything else. This is a well
known problem for which there
[Default] On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 12:46:09 +0100, Franco Fichtner
wrote:
>
>> On 8 Feb 2017, at 12:29 PM,
>> wrote:
>>
>> I just tried to install the fuse-nfts pkg under 10.2 on my
>> server-of-all-work. But after requiring me to "upgrade" pkg, the
>> fuse-ntfs install failed, apparently because
My bug report just got closed by Mathieu Arnold because "You are
using an obsolete FreeBSD version, you need to update to 10.3."
So, what's the deal here? To "encourage" people to upgrade, pkg
will break their existing install? That is both hostile and
deeply arrogant!
I don't want to upgrade b
> On 8 Feb 2017, at 12:29 PM,
> wrote:
>
> I just tried to install the fuse-nfts pkg under 10.2 on my
> server-of-all-work. But after requiring me to "upgrade" pkg, the
> fuse-ntfs install failed, apparently because there's an undefined
> symbol ("utimenstat") in pkg itself!
>
> How do I ext
I just tried to install the fuse-nfts pkg under 10.2 on my
server-of-all-work. But after requiring me to "upgrade" pkg, the
fuse-ntfs install failed, apparently because there's an undefined
symbol ("utimenstat") in pkg itself!
How do I extricate myself?
___
57 matches
Mail list logo
