packages with portupgrade update on release
in [FreeBSD]
|
Prev: NYC LOCAL: Wednesday 2 June 2010 NYCBUG: Nikolai Fetissov on the Use of GDB for Systems Administration
Next: freebsd support for aws ec2
From: Indi on 4 Jun 2010 14:32 On 2010-06-04, Michel Talon <talon(a)lpthe.jussieu.fr> wrote: > > If one accepts building from source, i don't see many objections to > portmaster. Still i am more and more convinced that a system based on > building from source will never be reliable... > ***sigh*** <PLONK> -- Caveat utilitor, indi
From: Bob Melson on 4 Jun 2010 14:45 On Friday 04 June 2010 12:32, Indi (indi(a)satcidananda.16x108.merseine.nu) opined: > On 2010-06-04, Michel Talon <talon(a)lpthe.jussieu.fr> wrote: >> >> If one accepts building from source, i don't see many objections to >> portmaster. Still i am more and more convinced that a system based on >> building from source will never be reliable... >> > > ***sigh*** > > <PLONK> > > -- > Caveat utilitor, > indi Indi, I think you do yourself a great disservice by killfiling M. Talon. I don't often agree with him, myself, but find what he has to say fairly reasonable and worthy of consideration. We all have our hobby-horses, his happens to be packages vs. ports. Remember, the Emperor may NOT have new clothes, after all. Just a thought, Bob Melson -- Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas ----- Nothing astonishes men so much as common sense and plain dealing. Ralph Waldo Emerson
From: Indi on 4 Jun 2010 14:52 On 2010-06-04, Bob Melson <amia9018(a)mypacks.net> wrote: > On Friday 04 June 2010 12:32, Indi (indi(a)satcidananda.16x108.merseine.nu) > opined: > >> On 2010-06-04, Michel Talon <talon(a)lpthe.jussieu.fr> wrote: >>> >>> If one accepts building from source, i don't see many objections to >>> portmaster. Still i am more and more convinced that a system based on >>> building from source will never be reliable... >>> >> >> ***sigh*** >> >> <PLONK> >> >> -- >> Caveat utilitor, >> indi > > Indi, > > I think you do yourself a great disservice by killfiling M. Talon. I don't > often agree with him, myself, but find what he has to say fairly > reasonable and worthy of consideration. We all have our hobby-horses, his > happens to be packages vs. ports. Remember, the Emperor may NOT have new > clothes, after all. > > Just a thought, > Bob Melson > I find him tedious, trollish, and obtuse in the extreme. The way to create change in FOSS is to get busy coding, not to harangue the users and developers endlessly like some drunken harpy. -- Caveat utilitor, indi
From: Indi on 4 Jun 2010 15:26 On 2010-06-04, Black Dragon <bd(a)nomail.invalid> wrote: > Indi wrote: > >> I find him tedious, trollish, and obtuse in the extreme. > > As you do with everyone you disagree with. > Considering that was the first time I ever said anything like that on this group about anybody I think you must be mistaken. In fact, M. Talon has the honor of being the only person from this group I have ever killfiled. You and I have disagreed on another group about another matter, but that is of course off topic here. And I didn't kf you over it. -- Caveat utilitor, indi
From: Michel Talon on 4 Jun 2010 17:36
Chronos <me3(a)privacy.net> wrote: > Bob Melson wrote: > > Thing is, Bob, you can use packages with FreeBSD. DougB has extended > portmaster to include package download and install [1] and there are This is a very recent addition to portmaster. Didn't i say that portmaster is a fine program? Don't you see that the addition of package management in portmaster shows that some people are increasingly aware that using packages is a good thing? > several collections of the output of pointyhat [2] to chose from if > the official release packages are not current enough with a bit of a > tweak to a few configuration knobs. > > All it takes is nous and the ability to use the date= [3] feature of > csup to match that of the pointyhat build (you still need a matching > ports tree). > > I get the impression that MT is being deliberately obtuse for reasons > of his own. Granted, it *is* more time-consuming and hands-on to run Isn't it exactly what i was saying, the lack of automatism? You are the one to check UPDATING, the pointyhat builds etc. it is not done for you. Have i said it is impossible or hard to maintain and upgrade using packages? No, i have said it is not really possible to do it automatically like in Debian. You may not value this automaticity, but it is the whole point of my argument. > this way than just bite the bullet and move to, in this case, Ubuntu > and apt, but it's certainly do-able [4] by anyone with even a passing It is so doable to clone apt behaviour for FreeBSD that i have done it myself several years ago in this demonstration program: http://www.lpthe.jussieu.fr/~talon/pkgupgrade In other words i am, contrary to Jane Hackers assertions, the one who has written some code.... Note that, with respect to pointyhat, Mark Linimon asked to remove explicit reference to pointyhat from said program, because he doesn't want to overload the machine. Hence your strategy for package upgrading may not necessarily be blessed by pointyhat managers. However i became convinced afterwards that there are too many problems in the ports system for such a thing to be reliable. The present day problems with gettext are an illustration. And the problem is much more complicated than one could naively think, se for example this post: http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=708926+0+current/freebsd-ports This post goes further to say: http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=812039+0+current/freebsd-ports " Yes, the architecture of ports is insufficient for a good solution of any kind, but as long as there is not even an agreement, what LIBDEPENDS are supposed to contain, following port updates is harder than it should be, because of the different strategies used to bump shared libraries that affect many ports. " Am i saying anything different than this post from *today* freebsd-ports mailing list? Of course such problems have been seen since a long time, hence the suspicion i have that Jane Hacker is not acquainted at all with the discussions appearing in the mailing lists. > > [4] Is it worth me writing this method up comprehensively or is it > easy enough to follow from the post? Your explanation is clear, thanks. -- Michel TALON |