On 01-09-2012 21:40, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> On 01/09/2012 18:43, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
>> In this scenario the ports tree needs to keep support for older releases,
>> but that's a consequence of the fact that there's only one ports tree for
>> all releases. Somewhere in between the ports and the v
On 9/1/2012 7:43 PM, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
On 31-08-2012 14:22, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 08:10:50AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
On Friday, August 31, 2012 5:59:10 am Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 01:02:06PM -1000, Doug Barton wrote:
I agree with Joh
On 31-08-2012 14:22, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 08:10:50AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
>> On Friday, August 31, 2012 5:59:10 am Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 01:02:06PM -1000, Doug Barton wrote:
I agree with John on all counts here. Further, the
Hi,
I think the details of the patch would need to be worked out a bit,
but I think you are on the right track.
I think it would be nice to:
(1) Have deprecation warnings in the legacy pkg_* tools.
If someone types "pkg_add", maybe warn them that
it is deprecated, and they
On Friday, August 31, 2012 9:41:13 am Chris Rees wrote:
> On 31 Aug 2012 13:15, "John Baldwin" wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, August 31, 2012 5:59:10 am Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 01:02:06PM -1000, Doug Barton wrote:
> > > > On 08/30/2012 07:32 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> > >
On 31 August 2012 16:47, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
> On 31-08-2012 14:22, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 08:10:50AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
>>> On Friday, August 31, 2012 5:59:10 am Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 01:02:06PM -1000, Doug Barton wrote:
>>>
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 2:59 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 01:02:06PM -1000, Doug Barton wrote:
>> On 08/30/2012 07:32 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
>> > On Thursday, August 30, 2012 1:10:24 pm Chris Rees wrote:
>> >> On 30 Aug 2012 18:03, "John Baldwin" wrote:
>> >>>
>>
>> I
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
> On 31-08-2012 14:22, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 08:10:50AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
>>> On Friday, August 31, 2012 5:59:10 am Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 01:02:06PM -1000, Doug Barton wr
On 31-08-2012 14:22, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 08:10:50AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
>> On Friday, August 31, 2012 5:59:10 am Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 01:02:06PM -1000, Doug Barton wrote:
I agree with John on all counts here. Further, the
On 31 Aug 2012 13:15, "John Baldwin" wrote:
>
> On Friday, August 31, 2012 5:59:10 am Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 01:02:06PM -1000, Doug Barton wrote:
> > > On 08/30/2012 07:32 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, August 30, 2012 1:10:24 pm Chris Rees wrote:
> > >
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 08:10:50AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Friday, August 31, 2012 5:59:10 am Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 01:02:06PM -1000, Doug Barton wrote:
> > > On 08/30/2012 07:32 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, August 30, 2012 1:10:24 pm Chris Re
On Friday, August 31, 2012 5:59:10 am Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 01:02:06PM -1000, Doug Barton wrote:
> > On 08/30/2012 07:32 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> > > On Thursday, August 30, 2012 1:10:24 pm Chris Rees wrote:
> > >> On 30 Aug 2012 18:03, "John Baldwin" wrote:
> > >>>
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 01:02:06PM -1000, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 08/30/2012 07:32 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 30, 2012 1:10:24 pm Chris Rees wrote:
> >> On 30 Aug 2012 18:03, "John Baldwin" wrote:
> >>>
>
> I agree with John on all counts here. Further, the idea of a
> self-i
On 08/30/2012 07:32 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Thursday, August 30, 2012 1:10:24 pm Chris Rees wrote:
>> On 30 Aug 2012 18:03, "John Baldwin" wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:39:17 am Tijl Coosemans wrote:
On 27-08-2012 18:24, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Sunday, August 26, 20
2012/8/26 Baptiste Daroussin :
> I received more feedback about keep pkg and changing it to
> pkg-bootstrap, so what should I do, changing it because you are asking for it?
So, just a "me too" for renaming pkg, for consistency. I don't mind
the new name...
--
Olivier Smedts
On Sun, 26 Aug 2012, Doug Barton wrote:
...
There really is no need to be so clever here. The bootstrapping issue is
going to be a minor annoyance that affects a small percentage of our users.
I think Doug's correct in this case about it being a "one-time
problem" as installing via bsdinsta
On 2012-Aug-26 12:27:41 -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
>On 08/26/2012 12:08, Ian Lepore wrote:
>> Maybe it could rename itself to /usr/local/sbin/pkg-bootstrap as part of
>> replacing itself, so that you could re-bootstrap your way out of a
>> problem later.
>
>That's certainly creative thinking, but I
On 08/26/2012 13:35, Warren Block wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2012, Ian Lepore wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 2012-08-26 at 20:58 +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>>> On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 11:39:07AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
On 08/26/2012 05:58, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
This isn't the security issu
On Sun, 26 Aug 2012, Ian Lepore wrote:
On Sun, 2012-08-26 at 20:58 +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 11:39:07AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
On 08/26/2012 05:58, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
This isn't the security issue I was talking about by having sbin/pkg
pass every comman
On 08/26/2012 12:08, Ian Lepore wrote:
> Would this get better if the bootstrap tool were named pkg and were
> installed on a fresh system at /usr/local/sbin, so that it in effect
> replaces itself with the real thing, and has no need to leave a
> forwarding stub in /usr/sbin ?
>
> Maybe it could
On Sun, 2012-08-26 at 20:58 +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 11:39:07AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> > On 08/26/2012 05:58, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> > This isn't the security issue I was talking about by having sbin/pkg
> > pass every command line to local/sbin/pkg.
> >
On 08/26/2012 11:58, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 11:39:07AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
>> On 08/26/2012 05:58, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>>
>>> The is the longer plan but this with also true with pkg_add -r, and the pkg
>>> bootstrap may it be pkg-bootstrap or /usr/sbin/pkg.
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 11:39:07AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 08/26/2012 05:58, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>
> > The is the longer plan but this with also true with pkg_add -r, and the pkg
> > bootstrap may it be pkg-bootstrap or /usr/sbin/pkg. We have been discussing
> > with
> > Security off
On 08/26/2012 05:58, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> The is the longer plan but this with also true with pkg_add -r, and the pkg
> bootstrap may it be pkg-bootstrap or /usr/sbin/pkg. We have been discussing
> with
> Security officers and we are waiting for the plan being written and setup by
> them,
On 08/26/2012 11:37, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 11:34:08AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
>> On 08/25/2012 02:49, Julien Laffaye wrote:
>>> True. But when you create jails without the installer, you have
>>> to install pkgng by hand.
>>
>> Just like all the other ports you have
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 11:34:08AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 08/25/2012 02:49, Julien Laffaye wrote:
> > True. But when you create jails without the installer, you have to
> > install pkgng by hand.
>
> Just like all the other ports you have to install in a jail.
>
>
> --
>
> I am on
On 08/25/2012 02:49, Julien Laffaye wrote:
> True. But when you create jails without the installer, you have to
> install pkgng by hand.
Just like all the other ports you have to install in a jail.
--
I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do
something. And I
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 02:26:50PM +0200, Jilles Tjoelker wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 06:34:43PM -0500, CyberLeo Kitsana wrote:
> > On 08/24/2012 07:01 PM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> > > Can anyone give me he details on the security related problem?
>
> > Off the top of my head, it seems to
On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 06:34:43PM -0500, CyberLeo Kitsana wrote:
> On 08/24/2012 07:01 PM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> > Can anyone give me he details on the security related problem?
> Off the top of my head, it seems to represent a break in the chain of
> trust: how does the bootstrapper verify
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/24/2012 07:01 PM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> Can anyone give me he details on the security related problem?
Off the top of my head, it seems to represent a break in the chain of
trust: how does the bootstrapper verify that the tarball it just
d
On 8/24/2012 11:57 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 8/23/2012 8:03 PM, Eitan Adler wrote:
On 23 August 2012 22:59, Doug Barton wrote:
I tend to agree with Steve here ... we can't be responsible for other
people's poorly written docs.
This isn't about poorly written docs. This is the user expecting a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 8/24/2012 5:33 PM, Glen Barber wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 01:25:15AM +0100, Jonathan Anderson wrote:
>> On 24 Aug 2012, at 23:38, Doug Barton wrote:
>>> Let me rephrase that more simply ... very few users are ever going to
>>> need the boot
On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 01:47:26AM +0100, Jonathan Anderson wrote:
> On Saturday, 25 August 2012 at 01:33, Glen Barber wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 01:25:15AM +0100, Jonathan Anderson wrote:
> > > On 24 Aug 2012, at 23:38, Doug Barton > > (mailto:do...@freebsd.org)> wrote:
> > > > Let me rep
On Saturday, 25 August 2012 at 01:33, Glen Barber wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 01:25:15AM +0100, Jonathan Anderson wrote:
> > On 24 Aug 2012, at 23:38, Doug Barton > (mailto:do...@freebsd.org)> wrote:
> > > Let me rephrase that more simply ... very few users are ever going to
> > > need the bo
On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 01:25:15AM +0100, Jonathan Anderson wrote:
> On 24 Aug 2012, at 23:38, Doug Barton wrote:
> > Let me rephrase that more simply ... very few users are ever going to
> > need the bootstrapping tool that will be in the base.
>
So, then they won't use it. I fail to see the p
On 24 Aug 2012, at 23:38, Doug Barton wrote:
> Let me rephrase that more simply ... very few users are ever going to
> need the bootstrapping tool that will be in the base.
But surely the whole point of pkgng is that people *will* use pkg as the
default method of acquiring third-party software,
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 03:38:33PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 8/24/2012 1:15 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> > BTW for people who haven't tested and want to share their opinion,
> > here is how work /usr/sbin/pkg:
> >
> > it first checks i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 8/24/2012 1:15 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> BTW for people who haven't tested and want to share their opinion,
> here is how work /usr/sbin/pkg:
>
> it first checks if ${LOCALBASE}/sbin/pkg is there - if yes it
> directly execute ${LOCALBASE}/
On 8/23/2012 8:03 PM, Eitan Adler wrote:
> On 23 August 2012 22:59, Doug Barton wrote:
>> I tend to agree with Steve here ... we can't be responsible for other
>> people's poorly written docs.
>
> This isn't about poorly written docs. This is the user expecting a
> tool to exist, which doesn't.
On 8/24/2012 11:02 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 10:50:30AM -0500, Bryan Drewery wrote:
>> On 8/24/2012 9:31 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 02:23:47PM +0200, Alex Dupre wrote:
Baptiste Daroussin ha scritto:
> On of the thing I forgo
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 10:50:30AM -0500, Bryan Drewery wrote:
> On 8/24/2012 9:31 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 02:23:47PM +0200, Alex Dupre wrote:
> >> Baptiste Daroussin ha scritto:
> >>
> >>> On of the thing I forgot and kan@ has added is a prompt for the user in
>
On 8/24/2012 9:31 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 02:23:47PM +0200, Alex Dupre wrote:
>> Baptiste Daroussin ha scritto:
>>
>>> On of the thing I forgot and kan@ has added is a prompt for the user in
>>> case it
>>> is going to bootstrap.
>>
>> So, removing the prompt will m
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 02:23:47PM +0200, Alex Dupre wrote:
> Baptiste Daroussin ha scritto:
>
> > On of the thing I forgot and kan@ has added is a prompt for the user in
> > case it
> > is going to bootstrap.
>
> So, removing the prompt will make everybody happy? :-)
>
> What about a prompt wi
Baptiste Daroussin ha scritto:
> On of the thing I forgot and kan@ has added is a prompt for the user in case
> it
> is going to bootstrap.
So, removing the prompt will make everybody happy? :-)
What about a prompt with timeout? "This is the first time pkg is run,
I'll start bootstrapping in 10
On 08/24/2012 10:15, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 06:19:57PM -0400, Steve Wills wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> It seems to me that renaming the pkg binary in /usr/sbin/pkg to
>> /usr/sbin/pkg-bootstrap would make sense. From a user standpoint, it is
>> confusing that running the comma
On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 23:00:25 -0400
Eitan Adler wrote:
> On 23 August 2012 22:55, Steve Wills wrote:
>
> > As far as I understand it, POLA is about changing existing things:
>
> okay, so forget POLA. My point is that a user following a how to or
> even *our* documentation on how to install som
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 06:19:57PM -0400, Steve Wills wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It seems to me that renaming the pkg binary in /usr/sbin/pkg to
> /usr/sbin/pkg-bootstrap would make sense. From a user standpoint, it is
> confusing that running the command gets different results the second time it
> is ru
On 8/24/2012 3:57 AM, Eitan Adler wrote:
On 23 August 2012 18:19, Steve Wills wrote:
Hi,
It seems to me that renaming the pkg binary in /usr/sbin/pkg to /usr/sbin/pkg-bootstrap
would make sense. From a user standpoint, it is confusing that running the command gets
different results the secon
On Thu, 23 Aug 2012, Eitan Adler wrote:
On 23 August 2012 22:55, Steve Wills wrote:
As far as I understand it, POLA is about changing existing things:
okay, so forget POLA. My point is that a user following a how to or
even *our* documentation on how to install something unrelated, like
sa
On 23 August 2012 22:59, Doug Barton wrote:
> No, POLA refers to not changing long-established practices out from
> under the user.
forget pola
>
> I tend to agree with Steve here ... we can't be responsible for other
> people's poorly written docs.
This isn't about poorly written docs. This is
On 23 August 2012 22:55, Steve Wills wrote:
> As far as I understand it, POLA is about changing existing things:
okay, so forget POLA. My point is that a user following a how to or
even *our* documentation on how to install something unrelated, like
say, apache, will be very confused when the d
On 8/23/2012 7:23 PM, Eitan Adler wrote:
> On 23 August 2012 22:15, Steve Wills wrote:
>> On Aug 23, 2012, at 10:08 PM, Eitan Adler wrote:
>>
>>> On 23 August 2012 22:05, Steve Wills wrote:
>>>
Why can't one of those steps be to run "pkg-bootstrap"?
>>>
>>> Because the how-to may not be for
On Aug 23, 2012, at 10:23 PM, Eitan Adler wrote:
> On 23 August 2012 22:15, Steve Wills wrote:
>> On Aug 23, 2012, at 10:08 PM, Eitan Adler wrote:
>>
>>> On 23 August 2012 22:05, Steve Wills wrote:
>>>
Why can't one of those steps be to run "pkg-bootstrap"?
>>>
>>> Because the how-to may
On 23 August 2012 22:15, Steve Wills wrote:
> On Aug 23, 2012, at 10:08 PM, Eitan Adler wrote:
>
>> On 23 August 2012 22:05, Steve Wills wrote:
>>
>>> Why can't one of those steps be to run "pkg-bootstrap"?
>>
>> Because the how-to may not be for a new system ;)
>
> The possibility of bad docs so
On Aug 23, 2012, at 10:08 PM, Eitan Adler wrote:
> On 23 August 2012 22:05, Steve Wills wrote:
>
>> Why can't one of those steps be to run "pkg-bootstrap"?
>
> Because the how-to may not be for a new system ;)
The possibility of bad docs somewhere outside of our control, when we can (and
I am
On 23 August 2012 22:05, Steve Wills wrote:
> Why can't one of those steps be to run "pkg-bootstrap"?
Because the how-to may not be for a new system ;)
--
Eitan Adler
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listin
On Aug 23, 2012, at 9:57 PM, Eitan Adler wrote:
> On 23 August 2012 18:19, Steve Wills wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> It seems to me that renaming the pkg binary in /usr/sbin/pkg to
>> /usr/sbin/pkg-bootstrap would make sense. From a user standpoint, it is
>> confusing that running the command gets diff
On 23 August 2012 18:19, Steve Wills wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It seems to me that renaming the pkg binary in /usr/sbin/pkg to
> /usr/sbin/pkg-bootstrap would make sense. From a user standpoint, it is
> confusing that running the command gets different results the second time it
> is run vs. the first t
On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 18:19:57 -0400
Steve Wills wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It seems to me that renaming the pkg binary in /usr/sbin/pkg
> to /usr/sbin/pkg-bootstrap would make sense. From a user standpoint,
> it is confusing that running the command gets different results the
> second time it is run vs. th
Le Fri, 24 Aug 2012 00:27:13 +0200,
Baptiste Daroussin a écrit :
Hello,
> > So, opinions? There may still be time to fix it for 9.1 if we can
> > decide quickly.
> >
> I do personnally have no opinion on this, I have hesitated long
> between both before choosing /usr/sbin/pkg.
>
> I'm interest
On 8/23/2012 5:38 PM, Bryan Drewery wrote:
> But if we rename, when and who runs it? Will we update bsd.port.mk to
> run it if needed?
Duh, ports-mgmt/pkg is already a PKG_DEPENDS in ports. So it gets pulled
in with WITH_PKGNG.
Bryan
___
freebsd-ports@f
On 8/23/2012 5:19 PM, Steve Wills wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It seems to me that renaming the pkg binary in /usr/sbin/pkg to
> /usr/sbin/pkg-bootstrap would make sense. From a user standpoint, it is
> confusing that running the command gets different results the second time it
> is run vs. the first time
On 8/23/2012 3:19 PM, Steve Wills wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It seems to me that renaming the pkg binary in /usr/sbin/pkg to
> /usr/sbin/pkg-bootstrap would make sense. From a user standpoint, it is
> confusing that running the command gets different results the second time it
> is run vs. the first time
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 06:19:57PM -0400, Steve Wills wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It seems to me that renaming the pkg binary in /usr/sbin/pkg to
> /usr/sbin/pkg-bootstrap would make sense. From a user standpoint, it is
> confusing that running the command gets different results the second time it
> is ru
Hi,
It seems to me that renaming the pkg binary in /usr/sbin/pkg to
/usr/sbin/pkg-bootstrap would make sense. From a user standpoint, it is
confusing that running the command gets different results the second time it is
run vs. the first time. I can imagine a user saying "I ran pkg, but it didn
65 matches
Mail list logo
