On 04/19/2017 22:22, Mark Linimon wrote:
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 04:37:05PM -0400, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
(Right now, it's quite hard to resist the paranoid suspicion that
maybe this crazy, anti-real-user behavior is a subtle way to kill
freebsd altogether by driving away the non-hobbyists.
Hi!
> >> If the whole repository builds doesn't it mean by default that any
> >> subset also builds?
> > If we defined a repo build only as valid if everything builds,
> > the whole repo is never valid, because approx. 10% of
> > the ports tree breaks at any given time. More, if you add options.
On 21/04/2017 02:51, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
If the whole repository builds doesn't it mean by default that any
subset also builds?
If we defined a repo build only as valid if everything builds,
the whole repo is never valid, because approx. 10% of
the ports tree breaks at any given time. More, if
Hi!
> >> I understand that the main problem with quarterly branches is that they
> >> start from an unstable edge and mature with time, then after three
> >> months at the most mature point they are being deleted and replaced with
> >> a new unstable edge. So, there is no good point of reference t
Hi :)
On 20/04/2017 19:57, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
Hi!
I understand that the main problem with quarterly branches is that they
start from an unstable edge and mature with time, then after three
months at the most mature point they are being deleted and replaced with
a new unstable edge. So, there i
Hi!
> I understand that the main problem with quarterly branches is that they
> start from an unstable edge and mature with time, then after three
> months at the most mature point they are being deleted and replaced with
> a new unstable edge. So, there is no good point of reference to use as
On 20/04/2017 17:11, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
Hi!
Fine, but would that be a good approach? Doesn't it look more like a
process change than a code change?
For me, it does not look like a process-change only.
I haven't thought through all the details, I'm going with my
intuition here (because thinki
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 02:13:52PM -0400, qjail1 wrote:
> I maintain a port and I have users complaining that the pkg system takes
> many months before the updated version of my port shows up in the pkg
> system.
>
> My response is I tell them to change a line in their
> /etc/pkg/FreeBSD.conf file
I maintain a port and I have users complaining that the pkg system takes
many months before the updated version of my port shows up in the pkg
system.
My response is I tell them to change a line in their
/etc/pkg/FreeBSD.conf file
from url: "pkg+http://pkg.Freebsd.org/${ABI}/quarterly";,
to url
Hi!
> Fine, but would that be a good approach? Doesn't it look more like a
> process change than a code change?
For me, it does not look like a process-change only.
I haven't thought through all the details, I'm going with my
intuition here (because thinking it through takes a long time).
One
Fine, but would that be a good approach? Doesn't it look more like a
process change than a code change? Surely, some code would need to be
changed but then again, wouldn't that be mostly configuration?
Grzegorz
On 20/04/2017 08:44, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
Hi!
I am not sure if this is a rant in
On 04/20/17 07:29, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
Le 20/04/2017 à 13:04, Julian Elischer a écrit :
On 20/4/17 5:15 pm, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
Le 20/04/2017 à 10:49, Torfinn Ingolfsen a écrit :
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 8:00 AM, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
Hi!
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 1:30 AM, Julian Elischer
Miroslav Lachman wrote:
It is not just about updates but about new installs too - if you have
dozens of machines for customers and you need them all in the same
version. Then some customer need some package not installed on his
machine and you cannot run "pkg install somepackage" because then
Mathieu Arnold wrote on 2017/04/20 13:29:
Le 20/04/2017 à 13:04, Julian Elischer a écrit :
On 20/4/17 5:15 pm, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
Le 20/04/2017 à 10:49, Torfinn Ingolfsen a écrit :
I am not exactly sure what you are asking for, to keep the previous, not
updated, quarterly package reposito
Le 20/04/2017 à 13:04, Julian Elischer a écrit :
> On 20/4/17 5:15 pm, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
>> Le 20/04/2017 à 10:49, Torfinn Ingolfsen a écrit :
>>> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 8:00 AM, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
Hi!
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 1:30 AM, Julian Elischer
> wrote:
>> quart
On 20/4/17 5:18 pm, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
Le 20/04/2017 à 11:15, Mathieu Arnold a écrit :
Le 20/04/2017 à 10:49, Torfinn Ingolfsen a écrit :
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 8:00 AM, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
Hi!
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 1:30 AM, Julian Elischer wrote:
quarterly however is broken because
On 20/4/17 5:15 pm, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
Le 20/04/2017 à 10:49, Torfinn Ingolfsen a écrit :
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 8:00 AM, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
Hi!
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 1:30 AM, Julian Elischer wrote:
quarterly however is broken because the pkg mirors discard it all at the
time of upda
Le 20/04/2017 à 11:15, Mathieu Arnold a écrit :
> Le 20/04/2017 à 10:49, Torfinn Ingolfsen a écrit :
>> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 8:00 AM, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 1:30 AM, Julian Elischer
wrote:
> quarterly however is broken because the pkg mirors disca
Le 20/04/2017 à 10:49, Torfinn Ingolfsen a écrit :
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 8:00 AM, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 1:30 AM, Julian Elischer wrote:
quarterly however is broken because the pkg mirors discard it all at the
time of update.
>>> Do they have to?
>>
Hi!
> >> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 1:30 AM, Julian Elischer
> >> wrote:
> >> > quarterly however is broken because the pkg mirors discard it all at the
> >> > time of update.
> >> Do they have to?
> >> Why couldn't pkg mirrors keep say, the four latest quarterly sets
> >> all the time?
> > Becau
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 8:00 AM, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 1:30 AM, Julian Elischer wrote:
>> > quarterly however is broken because the pkg mirors discard it all at the
>> > time of update.
>
>> Do they have to?
>> Why couldn't pkg mirrors keep say, the four latest qua
Hi!
> I am not sure if this is a rant in favour or against quarterly branches.
> And this discussion comes up again and again quite regularly. I wonder
> why ports don't follow the development model of the FreeBSD kernel?
- lack of developer time
We have bapt who develops pkg. bdrewery, who d
On 20/04/2017 05:37, Mark Linimon wrote:
I understand that having the quarterlies is not meeting your use case.
You've said that. We get it.
So you want some kind of running -quarterly branch.
But where are the N hours of work per week to QA all the patches to
the -quarterly branch, or a -stab
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 00:37:22 -0500
Mark Linimon wrote:
> I understand that having the quarterlies is not meeting your use case.
> You've said that. We get it.
>
> So you want some kind of running -quarterly branch.
>
> But where are the N hours of work per week to QA all the patches to
> the -
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017, at 06:22 AM, Mark Linimon wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 04:37:05PM -0400, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
> > (Right now, it's quite hard to resist the paranoid suspicion that
> > maybe this crazy, anti-real-user behavior is a subtle way to kill
> > freebsd altogether by drivin
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017, at 02:54 PM, qjail1 wrote:
> I maintain a port and I have users complaining that the pkg system takes
> many months before the updated version of my port shows up in the pkg
> system.
>
> My response is I tell them to change a line in their
> /etc/pkg/FreeBSD.conf file
> f
Hi!
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 1:30 AM, Julian Elischer wrote:
> > quarterly however is broken because the pkg mirors discard it all at the
> > time of update.
> Do they have to?
> Why couldn't pkg mirrors keep say, the four latest quarterly sets
> all the time?
Because the URL for the latest qu
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 1:30 AM, Julian Elischer wrote:
> quarterly however is broken because the pkg mirors discard it all at the
> time of update.
>
Do they have to?
Why couldn't pkg mirrors keep say, the four latest quarterly sets all the time?
This would increase the usability of quarterly pa
I understand that having the quarterlies is not meeting your use case.
You've said that. We get it.
So you want some kind of running -quarterly branch.
But where are the N hours of work per week to QA all the patches to
the -quarterly branch, or a -stable branch, or whatever people seem
to deman
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 04:37:05PM -0400, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
> (Right now, it's quite hard to resist the paranoid suspicion that
> maybe this crazy, anti-real-user behavior is a subtle way to kill
> freebsd altogether by driving away the non-hobbyists.)
That's one explanation.
The other,
On 20/4/17 6:29 am, Dewayne Geraghty wrote:
Scratch65535, I think your best solution is to use latest and upgrade when
you need to. Unlike Freddie's comment re only desktop users using latest.
I ONLY upgrade my local svn of ports when there's a vulnerability or
significant (for users) functional
On 20/4/17 4:37 am, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
[Default] On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 15:57:02 +0100, krad
wrote:
quarterly does seem very cautious, maybe a monthly might be a good
alternative.
I have to STRONGLY disagree.
Right now, pkg isn't smart enough not to use version-skewed bits.
Which means
On 19/4/17 12:13 am, Freddie Cash wrote:
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 7:57 AM, krad wrote:
quarterly does seem very cautious, maybe a monthly might be a good
alternative. I can understand people being hesitant about latest though. I
guess these are not the people who ask though. Maybe the real answ
Scratch65535, I think your best solution is to use latest and upgrade when
you need to. Unlike Freddie's comment re only desktop users using latest.
I ONLY upgrade my local svn of ports when there's a vulnerability or
significant (for users) functional improvement of a port.
It is a labour intens
[Default] On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 15:57:02 +0100, krad
wrote:
>quarterly does seem very cautious, maybe a monthly might be a good
>alternative.
I have to STRONGLY disagree.
Right now, pkg isn't smart enough not to use version-skewed bits.
Which means that, for those of us trying to use freebsd a
Jan Beich wrote:
qjail1 writes:
I maintain a port and I have users complaining that the pkg system
takes many months before the updated version of my port shows up in
the pkg system.
Better ask committer assigned to your bug to add MFH tag or send an
email to ports-secteam@ (and CC portmgr@)
qjail1 writes:
> I maintain a port and I have users complaining that the pkg system
> takes many months before the updated version of my port shows up in
> the pkg system.
Better ask committer assigned to your bug to add MFH tag or send an
email to ports-secteam@ (and CC portmgr@) which commit t
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 7:57 AM, krad wrote:
> quarterly does seem very cautious, maybe a monthly might be a good
> alternative. I can understand people being hesitant about latest though. I
> guess these are not the people who ask though. Maybe the real answer though
> is to have a specific repo
quarterly does seem very cautious, maybe a monthly might be a good
alternative. I can understand people being hesitant about latest though. I
guess these are not the people who ask though. Maybe the real answer though
is to have a specific repo for that port for the bleeding edge people much
like
I maintain a port and I have users complaining that the pkg system takes
many months before the updated version of my port shows up in the pkg
system.
My response is I tell them to change a line in their
/etc/pkg/FreeBSD.conf file
from url: "pkg+http://pkg.Freebsd.org/${ABI}/quarterly";,
to
40 matches
Mail list logo
