> Portage problems:
> 1. It's not easy to use an older version of software. We can't
> upgrade to mysql 4.x for political reasons and have to run 3.x
> Portage constantly wants to upgrade to 4. I pinned it to 3.x, but
> that breaks builds of many packages that depend on mysql. Most of
> them ha
Gabriel Ambuehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Johannes Hofmann wrote:
>
>>I don't understand what this has to do with Xen or similar approaches.
>>Every process has it's own address space anyway. And if there
>>are local root exploits, they need to be fixed, just as security flaws
>>that might e
Johannes Hofmann wrote:
>I don't understand what this has to do with Xen or similar approaches.
>Every process has it's own address space anyway. And if there
>are local root exploits, they need to be fixed, just as security flaws
>that might exist in Xen or whatever. Just the fact that Xen ena
Gabriel Ambuehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As I said, in such setups you probably don't even want them to run in
> the same address space. If you got goobs of memory and CPU, the security
> aspect is well worth the few percent performance hit of running it
> inside Xen or something similar and on
Matthew Dillon wrote:
>Well, this is somewhat amusing because we are now all the way
>back to my original 'wish list' for a packaging system... that is,
>to install packages in self-contained directories, use varsyms
>in global directories (like /usr/local/blah) to control visibili
On 2005-08-18, Joerg Sonnenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 11:33:11AM -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote:
>> > I can control all options from /etc/mk.conf, not the separation used in
>> > FreeBSD by default.
>>
>> What's wrong with /etc/make.conf for the system wide default set
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 07:22:57PM -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote:
>to install packages in self-contained directories, use varsyms
>in global directories (like /usr/local/blah) to control visibility,
that's what some *huge* sites do. accept more like /usr/local/blah-1.2.5_2
on AFS (no varsyms
Well, this is somewhat amusing because we are now all the way
back to my original 'wish list' for a packaging system... that is,
to install packages in self-contained directories, use varsyms
in global directories (like /usr/local/blah) to control visibility,
and to be able to p
Oh, I have nothing against using ports/pkgsrc for producing packages. And
actually couldn't care less how package management is accomplished.
_I just want it to work._
In my experience apt/dpkg has been able to do things that I simply could
not do with ports/portupgrade -- such as upgrading gnom
Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 06:29:43PM +0200, Gabriel Ambuehl wrote:
If anything, it should be thought further (and some are already pressing
in that direction, notably Xen and VMware ESX): self contained
single purpose OS instances.
A nice hype, but IMO a nightmare for
Andreas Hauser wrote:
Not at ALL, it will run in Xen Ring.
Is that so?
That means it will run in virtual container and the Desktop OS,
which almost certainly is not DragonFly will run in another container.
Don't realy understand that part, but I will read myself more in to that
subject.
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 06:29:43PM +0200, Gabriel Ambuehl wrote:
> If anything, it should be thought further (and some are already pressing
> in that direction, notably Xen and VMware ESX): self contained
> single purpose OS instances.
A nice hype, but IMO a nightmare for administration.
> One ma
mhellwig wrote @ Thu, 18 Aug 2005 15:22:47 +0200:
> When DF is SSI clusterable, then of course it is going to be on the
> average company desktop, there is no way I am continuing to throw away
> all this CPU power & other resources when I _have_ an option to use it
> even if it means that some
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 11:32:04AM -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On 2005-08-17, Joerg Sonnenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There are a lot of small things I came to love over the time, e.g.
> > support for shlock, (b)make package also building the packages of its
> > dependencies (that'S IMO
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 12:34:47 -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On 2005-08-17, Matthew Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>:
>>:Hiten Pandya wrote:
>>:
>>:>
>>:> In my opinion, the option to build packages is only useful to people who
>>:> want extreme modifications to their applications. I am su
Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
>>I've just come to think that such a system would fit nicely into the
>>DragonflyBSD attitude to "simplify to scale".
>>
>>
>
>Again, it is a nice thing for big programs you don't want to update or
>can't update regulary. OOo would be a good candidate for this. For
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 11:33:11AM -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > I can control all options from /etc/mk.conf, not the separation used in
> > FreeBSD by default.
>
> What's wrong with /etc/make.conf for the system wide default setting?
I meant that FreeBSD still pops the dialog box up for each p
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 05:45:14PM +0200, Raphael Marmier wrote:
> >The reason why this is not used by default for normal system
> >distribution is the high amount of redundancy and that not every
> >dependency just works out of the box. As soon as a library needs a
> >config file itself, you have
Raphael Marmier wrote:
>
>> In summary, this concept works best for distributing "shrinkware" like
>> Office programs, but is not such a good concept as general package
>> system.
>
> You have a point. However, little research has gone into this kind of
> system so its inherent difficulties haven'
On 2005-08-17, Matthew Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>:
>:Hiten Pandya wrote:
>:
>:>
>:> In my opinion, the option to build packages is only useful to people who
>:> want extreme modifications to their applications. I am sure most
>:> people, including me would not really care about sourc
On 2005-08-17, Joerg Sonnenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 04:26:21PM +0100, Hiten Pandya wrote:
>> One of the only reason why I am still holding onto pkgsrc is because it
>> has (atleast) some support for views or shall I say isolated installations
>> of same package
On 2005-08-18, Joerg Sonnenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 02:39:20AM +0100, Hiten Pandya wrote:
>> Semantical differences, at best, lets be honest. They really do not
>> affect the bigger picture all that much and if they do, I would like to
>> hear about them.
>
> S
Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 01:39:05AM +0200, Raphael Marmier wrote:
While strictly copying MacOSX is not an option, our dream package
management system should allow us to install an application and all its
dependencies in its own directory, possibly with its own config s
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 01:39:05AM +0200, Raphael Marmier wrote:
> While strictly copying MacOSX is not an option, our dream package
> management system should allow us to install an application and all its
> dependencies in its own directory, possibly with its own config space.
> This would be
On 11:38, Thu 18 Aug 05, Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 10:11:25 -0700 (PDT)
> Matthew Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Illusion. Every time I have ever used portupgrade, the result has
> >been a completely broken system. Every time.
>
> I do use source bui
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 01:07:24PM +, Charles Allen wrote:
> I must admit I'm a bit shocked at the "binary packages only" talk.
The point of this discussion is NOT binary-only. It is about defining
the requirements for a package management system. You can do normal
source builds, but it can me
On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 10:35:47PM -, Andreas Hauser wrote:
> hmp wrote @ Thu, 18 Aug 2005 02:28:19 +0100:
>
> > >>Can we not use ports or pkgsrc as our build part of the problem, and
> > >>produce packages that are understandable by APT* ?
>
> I am not at all convinced that some other backen
Andreas Hauser wrote:
The average guy installing a system intended to be SSI cluster ?
That we happen to run it as our desktop marks us hardly as average guys.
Think you have a wrong impression of the cummunity there.
They are all perverts running ion/*box/xfce4/9wm etc. if they run that
stupi
>> In my opinion, the option to build packages is only useful to people who
>> want extreme modifications to their applications. I am sure most
>> people, including me would not really care about source packages; I for
>> one would not bother building OpenOffice or KDE locally, total waste of
> T
Raphaël Marmier wrote:
This would answer the needs expressed many time in an acceptable
compromise:
- upgrading an app without breaking another in the process
- able to install multiple versions of a package
- allow piecemeal upgrades
- allow updating a single package
- you can have several ad
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 10:11:25 -0700 (PDT)
Matthew Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Illusion. Every time I have ever used portupgrade, the result has
>been a completely broken system. Every time.
Most odd - I use it about once a fortnight with nary a single problem,
but then I
Le 18 août 05 à 11:39, Gabriel Ambuehl a écrit :
Raphael Marmier wrote:
Gabriel Ambuehl wrote:
Long story short: the perfect system doesn't yet exist. OSX .app
approach comes close but is totally different paradigm and not
really
what a BSD should be after.
While strictly copying Ma
Michel Talon wrote:
> Garance A Drosihn wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I have had very good luck with portupgrade, on multiple freebsd
>> systems on multiple platforms. I do avoid the biggies like KDE
>> or Gnome, which obviously helps.
>>
>
> Since half the ports i have on my machine, if not 3/4 require one
Raphael Marmier wrote:
> Gabriel Ambuehl wrote:
>
>> Long story short: the perfect system doesn't yet exist. OSX .app
>> approach comes close but is totally different paradigm and not really
>> what a BSD should be after.
>
> While strictly copying MacOSX is not an option, our dream package
> man
jfrazer wrote @ Thu, 18 Aug 2005 01:58:59 -0500:
> The reason I'm not running it right now is lack of good binary packages
> and a good package management system. I don't have time to mess around
> with source builds which may or may not work. I want an upgrade path
> that has a good probability
The reason I'm not running it right now is lack of good binary packages
and a good package management system. I don't have time to mess around
with source builds which may or may not work. I want an upgrade path
that has a good probability of working, and if it is going to fail I don't
want to
hmp wrote @ Thu, 18 Aug 2005 02:28:19 +0100:
> Well, to be honest with you Jon, I certainly haven't tried sending "compat
> patches" to Kris or any of the senior ports people so I am not going to
> judge on that basis. If someone has tried this and got denied, please
> speak up; this is a tang
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 02:39:20AM +0100, Hiten Pandya wrote:
> Semantical differences, at best, lets be honest. They really do not
> affect the bigger picture all that much and if they do, I would like to
> hear about them.
Sure, like I said -- the small things I started to really enjoy :-)
>
Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 04:26:21PM +0100, Hiten Pandya wrote:
One of the only reason why I am still holding onto pkgsrc is because it
has (atleast) some support for views or shall I say isolated installations
of same package but different version; apart from that pkgs
Matthew Dillon wrote:
...Every time I have ever used portupgrade, the result has
been a completely broken system. Every time.
Are you suggesting that YOU are a typical user??? I don't
think so!
I've had a few problems over the years, but far fewer than
I've had with the pkg_chk function
Jon Dama wrote:
This is hardly the point is it? Its true enough that one could easily
view supporting DragonflyBSD as if it was just another major version
number of FreeBSD--even if the mechanisms are very ad-hoc.
Hmm, very debatable and delicate issue, I will leave answering this one
becaus
On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 05:04:28PM -0700, walt wrote:
> Are you complaining about portage wearing your developer hat, or
> your user hat?
In this case my user hat :-)
Joerg
/me goes back to deciding whether giving KDE another time is worth his
time.
ejc wrote:
On 8/17/05, Michel Talon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have never used portage, but a lot of people are very happy with it.
But for sure i have encountered severe breakage in FreeBSD ports, so
i don't see any reason to despise the Gentoo work.
I run Gentoo at work and fight with por
Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
[snip]
> I've worked with both and Gentoo was far easier to *completely* break.
1) I am not opposed to pkgsrc (versus ports). I have become neutral.
2) I am a big fan of gentoo portage (as a user, not a developer).
I've had (almost) zero problems in the four years
Gabriel Ambuehl wrote:
Long story short: the perfect system doesn't yet exist. OSX .app
approach comes close but is totally different paradigm and not really
what a BSD should be after.
While strictly copying MacOSX is not an option, our dream package
management system should allow us to instal
Garance A Drosihn wrote:
I have had very good luck with portupgrade, on multiple freebsd
systems on multiple platforms. I do avoid the biggies like KDE
or Gnome, which obviously helps.
Since half the ports i have on my machine, if not 3/4 require one or the
other of Gnome libraries, using
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 22:54:32 +0200, Erik P. Skaalerud wrote:
> As Joerg said earlier, why not rather look at _why_ people love to use
> apt instead of pkg_*?
>
> Can't we just try to make our own packaging system (like apt wich is
> easy to use) wich could perhaps use packages as primary medium
> Another issue here, is that we have un-substantiated claims that FreeBSD
> port maintainers will not accept patch files to make ports work on
> DragonFly? I have yet to see any evidence on this matter.
This is hardly the point is it? Its true enough that one could easily
view supporting Drago
As Joerg said earlier, why not rather look at _why_ people love to use
apt instead of pkg_*?
Can't we just try to make our own packaging system (like apt wich is
easy to use) wich could perhaps use packages as primary medium, but yet
provide a posibillity to compile software like we do with po
At 6:47 PM +0200 8/17/05, Michel Talon wrote:
Hiten Pandya wrote:
Extremely important to get binary package management right,
including dependency handling, (automatic) updating.
If it was not for these softs, and some other softs like Gnome,
which are constantly broken for any reason, i hav
Michel Talon wrote:
>
> This is nice to know, i was under the impression i was so dumb as
> being unable to use portupgrade (yes, my experience is not far from
> yours) when so many people swear on the bible that they regularly
> upgrade their machine with portupgrade without a single hiccup :-)
>
On August 17, 2005 11:06 am, Michel Talon wrote:
> Matthew Dillon wrote:
> >Illusion. Every time I have ever used portupgrade, the result
> > has been a completely broken system. Every time.
> This is nice to know, i was under the impression i was so dumb as
> being unable to use portupgrad
:
:Matthew Dillon wrote:
:
:>
:>Illusion. Every time I have ever used portupgrade, the result has
:>been a completely broken system. Every time.
:>
:
:This is nice to know, i was under the impression i was so dumb as
:being unable to use portupgrade (yes, my experience is not far from
Michel Talon wrote:
Matthew Dillon wrote:
Illusion. Every time I have ever used portupgrade, the result has
been a completely broken system. Every time.
This is nice to know, i was under the impression i was so dumb as
being unable to use portupgrade (yes, my experience is not far
Matthew Dillon wrote:
Illusion. Every time I have ever used portupgrade, the result has
been a completely broken system. Every time.
This is nice to know, i was under the impression i was so dumb as
being unable to use portupgrade (yes, my experience is not far from
yours) when so
On Wed, August 17, 2005 11:26 am, Hiten Pandya said:
> Another issue here, is that we have un-substantiated claims that FreeBSD
> port maintainers will not accept patch files to make ports work on
> DragonFly? I have yet to see any evidence on this matter.
I talked about something like that, tho
On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 04:26:21PM +0100, Hiten Pandya wrote:
> One of the only reason why I am still holding onto pkgsrc is because it
> has (atleast) some support for views or shall I say isolated installations
> of same package but different version; apart from that pkgsrc has no
> overall ad
:
:Hiten Pandya wrote:
:
:>
:> In my opinion, the option to build packages is only useful to people who
:> want extreme modifications to their applications. I am sure most
:> people, including me would not really care about source packages; I for
:> one would not bother building OpenOffice or
Hiten Pandya wrote:
In my opinion, the option to build packages is only useful to people who
want extreme modifications to their applications. I am sure most
people, including me would not really care about source packages; I for
one would not bother building OpenOffice or KDE locally, tota
As you said Joerg, that apt/dpkg* are good for managing packages then for
building them; this seems to be backed by Andreas as well.
One of the only reason why I am still holding onto pkgsrc is because it
has (atleast) some support for views or shall I say isolated installations
of same packag
On 8/17/05, Michel Talon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Portage looks nice for the first time you use, until you hit a major
> > problem with it.
>
> I have never used portage, but a lot of people are very happy with it.
> But for sure i have encountered severe breakage in FreeBSD ports, so
> i d
On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 03:27:26PM +0200, Michel Talon wrote:
> >If you want to invest time, think about how apt-get can either be ported
>
> Apt-get has no extraordinary magic that portupgrade misses.
apt-get is more involved, but has it own problems as well. It does have
a somewhat simpler job
Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
Debian has
literally thousands of contributors, partly because the system is a
maintainance hell. I completely agree with Andreas on that.
I don't agree. Debian has > 1000 contributors because Linux is
infinitely more popular than *BSD, in particular for "political"
On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 12:26:37AM +0100, Hiten Pandya wrote:
> Can we not just go with an established packaging suite like the one found
> in Debian and modify it for our use?
Please, don't mix building packages with managing packages. Debian has
a lot of cool work done for the latter, but is co
On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 10:20:40AM +0200, Michel Talon wrote:
> Andreas Hauser wrote:
> >
> >When labor is not that cheap, you need better technology
> >to accomplish similar. That is what ports/pkgsrc is. It makes
> >producing those packages much easier, so that less people
> >can produce more pac
> I think you have an important point. The only way to have a reliable
> packaging system is to produce binaries of *all* the software you
> claim you are releasing.
A minor point: pkgsrc has regular quarterly releases for just this reason.
The 2005Q2 release is coming up, for instance. I would
> > http://zorked.net/smart/doc/README.html
>
> wow. this one looks almost exactly like the system I had envisioned.
> That's for sure worth looking at. Couple it with a mighty build
> system/binary packaging system (portage/dpkg marriage style) and it's
> about perfect.
>
Portage indeed is a m
talon wrote @ Wed, 17 Aug 2005 10:20:40 +0200:
> Andreas Hauser wrote:
> >
> > When labor is not that cheap, you need better technology
> > to accomplish similar. That is what ports/pkgsrc is. It makes
> > producing those packages much easier, so that less people
> > can produce more packages.
>
>
Andreas Hauser wrote:
When labor is not that cheap, you need better technology
to accomplish similar. That is what ports/pkgsrc is. It makes
producing those packages much easier, so that less people
can produce more packages.
It is not so difficult to produce Debian packages. I have played
a l
Hiten Pandya wrote:
Can we not just go with an established packaging suite like the one
found in Debian and modify it for our use?
It's certainly more established than pkgsrc, and has more packages.
Hiten Pandya
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hiten, i concur with you. In my opinio
hmp wrote @ Wed, 17 Aug 2005 00:26:37 +0100:
> Can we not just go with an established packaging suite like the one found
> in Debian and modify it for our use?
>
> It's certainly more established than pkgsrc, and has more packages.
I think you have a flaw in your thinking, there, where you assume
Hiten Pandya wrote:
http://zorked.net/smart/doc/README.html
wow. this one looks almost exactly like the system I had envisioned.
That's for sure worth looking at. Couple it with a mighty build
system/binary packaging system (portage/dpkg marriage style) and it's
about perfect.
cheers
si
Hiten Pandya wrote:
Can we not just go with an established packaging suite like the one
found in Debian and modify it for our use?
It's certainly more established than pkgsrc, and has more packages.
Hiten Pandya
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
It might be worth for interested parti
Can we not just go with an established packaging suite like the one found
in Debian and modify it for our use?
It's certainly more established than pkgsrc, and has more packages.
Hiten Pandya
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
74 matches
Mail list logo
