Re: loongson was -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Eric Furman ericfur...@fastmail.net wrote: Yea ,and its made by the Chinese. Fuck China. China is one of the worst murderous dictatorships in the last 500 years. If it was 1935 and the UberMensch PC would you all be falling over yourselves to get one?? George Santayana is rolling over in his grave. My appy poly loggies for my political rant. Cary on... Like OpenBGPD and Hitler? --Siju
Re: -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
On 2010 Mar 05 (Fri) at 12:36:04 -0800 (-0800), J.C. Roberts wrote: :The thing is, you've kind mixed things up because you didn't understand :the context. STeve was doing *more* than just running the -current :snapshot and packages. He was getting into -HEAD branch to help espie@ :out with testing of the new super cool toy, dpb3 (distributed package :building). It was clearly announced as totally experimental for 4.7 :by espie@ on the ports@ mailing list. : :Not many people have the bandwidth and stack of systems required to do :distributed builds of the *ENTIRE* ports tree. None the less, great :people doing bulk builds is how your packages get built for all the :mirrors. At present, they're still using the reliable old dpb rather :than the new experimental one because the latter is still under heavy :development and still needs more testing. Being the guy that does the sparc package builds, I *am* running it with the new dpb3. The best way to get testing, is to use it. (I'm also running dpb3 on my OpenBSD/loongson system, but that is just for private use, and to find packages that fail to build ;) ). -- $100 invested at 7% interest for 100 years will become $100,000, at which time it will be worth absolutely nothing. -- Lazarus Long, Time Enough for Love
Re: -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
On 2010 Mar 06 (Sat) at 14:26:25 +0530 (+0530), Siju George wrote: :On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Peter Hessler phess...@theapt.org wrote: : : (I'm also running dpb3 on my OpenBSD/loongson system, but that is just : for private use, and to find packages that fail to build ;) ). : : :loongson seems to be a very low end cpu system. what is the special :attraction towards it? :-) : sort version: its a laptop, and its not intel. -- There's no point in being grown up if you can't be childish sometimes. -- Dr. Who
Re: -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Peter Hessler phess...@theapt.org wrote: (I'm also running dpb3 on my OpenBSD/loongson system, but that is just for private use, and to find packages that fail to build ;) ). loongson seems to be a very low end cpu system. what is the special attraction towards it? :-) thanks --Siju
Re: -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
On Sat, Mar 06, 2010 at 02:26:25PM +0530, Siju George wrote: On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Peter Hessler phess...@theapt.org wrote: (I'm also running dpb3 on my OpenBSD/loongson system, but that is just for private use, and to find packages that fail to build ;) ). loongson seems to be a very low end cpu system. what is the special attraction towards it? :-) thanks --Siju loongson has a very decent speed/power usage ratio. Also, i would not consider it very low end. And in general, different than mainstream hardware is attractive because it's, ehh, different. -Otto
Re: loongson was -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
Yea ,and its made by the Chinese. Fuck China. China is one of the worst murderous dictatorships in the last 500 years. If it was 1935 and the UberMensch PC would you all be falling over yourselves to get one?? George Santayana is rolling over in his grave. My appy poly loggies for my political rant. Cary on... On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 09:57 +0100, Peter Hessler phess...@theapt.org wrote: On 2010 Mar 06 (Sat) at 14:26:25 +0530 (+0530), Siju George wrote: :On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Peter Hessler phess...@theapt.org wrote: : : (I'm also running dpb3 on my OpenBSD/loongson system, but that is just : for private use, and to find packages that fail to build ;) ). : : :loongson seems to be a very low end cpu system. what is the special :attraction towards it? :-) : sort version: its a laptop, and its not intel. -- There's no point in being grown up if you can't be childish sometimes. -- Dr. Who
Re: loongson was -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
Yea ,and its made by the Chinese. Just like most of the electronic devices being manufactured today.
Re: loongson was -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
Eric Furman wrote: Yea ,and its made by the Chinese. Awww, what a *cute* little troll! I wonder if he realizes ... *squish* -- -RSM http://www.erratic.ca
Re: loongson was -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
On Sat, Mar 06, 2010 at 05:07:36AM -0500, Eric Furman wrote: Yea ,and its made by the Chinese. As opposed to your Thinkpad/Dell/HP/etc? Fuck China. China is one of the worst murderous dictatorships in the last 500 years. If it was 1935 and the UberMensch PC would you all be falling over yourselves to get one?? George Santayana is rolling over in his grave. My appy poly loggies for my political rant. Cary on... On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 09:57 +0100, Peter Hessler phess...@theapt.org wrote: On 2010 Mar 06 (Sat) at 14:26:25 +0530 (+0530), Siju George wrote: :On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Peter Hessler phess...@theapt.org wrote: : : (I'm also running dpb3 on my OpenBSD/loongson system, but that is just : for private use, and to find packages that fail to build ;) ). : : :loongson seems to be a very low end cpu system. what is the special :attraction towards it? :-) : sort version: its a laptop, and its not intel. -- There's no point in being grown up if you can't be childish sometimes. -- Dr. Who
Re: loongson was -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
Eric Furman is a racist bigot.
Re: -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 01:12:17PM -0500, nixlists wrote: The other problem, that gets mentioned is some people are forced to run -current because some packages will only work with -current, and backporting sucks for many reasons. Forgot to nitpick this one. *nobody* is *forced* to run -current. no kidding. if anyone ever feels forced to run -current, or any other version of openbsd, please please please, go run windows or linux instead, just to spite us.
Re: -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
Well, sometimes we fuck up -current. Not on purpose, but it happens. If you run into a broken snapshot, you may have to wait a few days until a new snapshot hits the mirrors, usually with everything fixed. ... and so, your system may be fucked for a few days. That said, we never get enough tests before the release. So problems happen right after release, usually, because everyone was too lazy to test things. Developers get frustrated with that. Theo gets *very* cranky over that. The solution is probably to entice more test-bunnies into OpenBSD, so that more tests gets done. We're very far from lemmings-linux, aka debian, where very little engineering actually gets done, and where the whole development process relies on hordes of lemmings^Wusers going over the cliff to actually get things to work. ;-)
Re: -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
On 2010-3-5 7:24 PM, Marc Espie wrote: Well, sometimes we fuck up -current. Not on purpose, but it happens. If you run into a broken snapshot, you may have to wait a few days until a new snapshot hits the mirrors, usually with everything fixed. ... and so, your system may be fucked for a few days. Unless you keep a copy of the last known good sets. If you have those, it's easy enough to roll back. They take very little space. It's a little more complex with ported apps, but doable as well. Regards, /Lars
Re: -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
On 3/5/10, Marc Espie es...@nerim.net wrote: Well, sometimes we fuck up -current. Not on purpose, but it happens. If you run into a broken snapshot, you may have to wait a few days until a new snapshot hits the mirrors, usually with everything fixed. ... and so, your system may be fucked for a few days. That said, we never get enough tests before the release. So problems happen right after release, usually, because everyone was too lazy to test things. Developers get frustrated with that. Theo gets *very* cranky over that. The solution is probably to entice more test-bunnies into OpenBSD, so that more tests gets done. We're very far from lemmings-linux, aka debian, where very little engineering actually gets done, and where the whole development process relies on hordes of lemmings^Wusers going over the cliff to actually get things to work. ;-) Ok is that sarcasm, or are you for real? Anyway, at least one person has this opinion: Yes, a basic understanding, plus the understanding that you need to catch a set of commits completely. That requires some understanding of the code at some level. Fortunately messing that up only means that you have to wait and update again, and not make the mistake of posting on a mailing list that something is wrong. I just did this, with the new distributed package builder that Marc Espie has redone--had I paid more attention, I would have seen that new stuff was added, which fixed the particular problem I had. Would it be ok to say that -current is probably not a good idea on production systems, for some people (who for whatever reasons can't do what is recommended in the above comment). I am not a C/*nix developer, should I really risk running current in production because I may not understand which snapshot to run? The other problem, that gets mentioned is some people are forced to run -current because some packages will only work with -current, and backporting sucks for many reasons. Would it be possible to give at least some information about where the progress is when each snapshot is made, or should it be assumed that a snapshot represents the source tree at a relatively stable state most of the time? Just trying to figure this out. Thanks.
Re: -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 01:12:17PM -0500, nixlists wrote: We're very far from lemmings-linux, aka debian, where very little engineering actually gets done, and where the whole development process relies on hordes of lemmings^Wusers going over the cliff to actually get things to work. ;-) Ok is that sarcasm, or are you for real? Nah, I don't exist. ;-) It's half sarcasm, half-truth. Some of the ways debian does stuff only works because they have thousands of developers and testers. We're working with a much smaller number of developers, so we must have engineering solutions that work better. Compare debian packages to OpenBSD ports, for instance, and the number of people working on both teams. Rough estimate, there is 1 openbsd developer responsible for a few hundreds packages. Would it be ok to say that -current is probably not a good idea on production systems, for some people (who for whatever reasons can't do what is recommended in the above comment). I am not a C/*nix developer, should I really risk running current in production because I may not understand which snapshot to run? If you follow good engineering practices, you can run current. That means understanding what a production system is. And to have a test system alongside, and to deploy new shit in production *only* after you've run adequate tests that the new stuff works for you. That doesn't require crazy development skills. It *does* require basic *professional* sys-admin skills.
Re: -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 01:12:17PM -0500, nixlists wrote: On 3/5/10, Marc Espie es...@nerim.net wrote: [snippz0rz] We're very far from lemmings-linux, aka debian, where very little engineering actually gets done, and where the whole development process relies on hordes of lemmings^Wusers going over the cliff to actually get things to work. ;-) Ok is that sarcasm, or are you for real? I have never seen espie@ in the same room as sarcasm, so I can only assume they are the same person. Anyway, at least one person has this opinion: Yes, a basic understanding, plus the understanding that you need to catch a set of commits completely. That requires some understanding of the code at some level. Fortunately messing that up only means that you have to wait and update again, and not make the mistake of posting on a mailing list that something is wrong. I just did this, with the new distributed package builder that Marc Espie has redone--had I paid more attention, I would have seen that new stuff was added, which fixed the particular problem I had. Would it be ok to say that -current is probably not a good idea on production systems, for some people (who for whatever reasons can't do what is recommended in the above comment). I am not a C/*nix developer, should I really risk running current in production because I may not understand which snapshot to run? It's not a matter of which snapshot to run; it's not like they're numbered with 4.6.x.y.z.aa.bb.cc. Snapshots are made periodically, and you've got a Hobson's choice: take it or don't. The other problem, that gets mentioned is some people are forced to run -current because some packages will only work with -current, and backporting sucks for many reasons. Unless you're running one of those, it doesn't affect you. Are you? You apparently don't know, no one is more qualified to answer these questions than you can. What you're looking to gain from this email exchange is what people call experience, which is what you get when you fuck something up a few times, not when you write an endless series of emails. So go fuck some shit up, and figure out what works for you. Go ahead and blog it. Write it down on the diary you keep under your bed. Use a gigantic laser to scribe it on the moon. Just, seriously, *do* something, instead of discussing it to death. This is worse than everybody being done, except for that one person who always chimes in with a well, what about...? in Monday-morning meetings. Would it be possible to give at least some information about where the progress is when each snapshot is made, or should it be assumed that a snapshot represents the source tree at a relatively stable state most of the time? No; search the archives for why (OH! SICK BURN!)
Re: -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Bret S. Lambert bret.lamb...@gmail.com wrote: The other problem, that gets mentioned is some people are forced to run -current because some packages will only work with -current, and backporting sucks for many reasons. Unless you're running one of those, it doesn't affect you. Are you? You apparently don't know, no one is more qualified to answer these questions than you can. Not true. You don't know either. The only reason why I tried -current is because I couldn't run a package in 4.6. not when you write an endless series of emails. I am not the only one who is interested in understanding these issues, judging by the length of this thread.
Re: -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 13:12:17 -0500 nixlists nixmli...@gmail.com wrote: Anyway, at least one person has this opinion: Yes, a basic understanding, plus the understanding that you need to catch a set of commits completely. That requires some understanding of the code at some level. Fortunately messing that up only means that you have to wait and update again, and not make the mistake of posting on a mailing list that something is wrong. I just did this, with the new distributed package builder that Marc Espie has redone--had I paid more attention, I would have seen that new stuff was added, which fixed the particular problem I had. Would it be ok to say that -current is probably not a good idea on production systems, for some people (who for whatever reasons can't do what is recommended in the above comment). I am not a C/*nix developer, should I really risk running current in production because I may not understand which snapshot to run? That opinion came from STeve Andre'. The thing is, you've kind mixed things up because you didn't understand the context. STeve was doing *more* than just running the -current snapshot and packages. He was getting into -HEAD branch to help espie@ out with testing of the new super cool toy, dpb3 (distributed package building). It was clearly announced as totally experimental for 4.7 by espie@ on the ports@ mailing list. Not many people have the bandwidth and stack of systems required to do distributed builds of the *ENTIRE* ports tree. None the less, great people doing bulk builds is how your packages get built for all the mirrors. At present, they're still using the reliable old dpb rather than the new experimental one because the latter is still under heavy development and still needs more testing. Similarly, if you're running -stable, the first thing to do when you hit a bug is see if you replicate the bug on -current before reporting it. Assuming it's not already fixed, you're probably going be given a patch to test... --Guess what, that comfy warm place you use for production systems (called -stable) is no longer what it was. If you think about the above for a moment, ya, you'd eventually be running -current and occasionally, -current+test_patches.
Re: -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 08:08:37PM +0100, Bret S. Lambert wrote: Ok is that sarcasm, or are you for real? I have never seen espie@ in the same room as sarcasm, so I can only assume they are the same person. If you're doing ports stuff, sarcasm is your best friend. Ciao, kili, slacking too much
Re: -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 12:36:04PM -0800, J.C. Roberts wrote: Not many people have the bandwidth and stack of systems required to do distributed builds of the *ENTIRE* ports tree. None the less, great people doing bulk builds is how your packages get built for all the mirrors. At present, they're still using the reliable old dpb rather than the new experimental one because the latter is still under heavy development and still needs more testing. Actually, even though it's still under development, it has some very nice features that make it ways more comfortable than old dpb if you can master the beast (e.g., unless it breaks in fun ways, it's ways more easy and responsive than old dpb). Ask all those great people' who are running bulk builds. and expect more features after 4.7 (currently working on nice switches to build stuff in ram when it fits, attributing a *global* chunk of /tmp for each host, and hoping to add a to be finished in 20 hours and 10 minutes more or less acurate guesstimate)
Re: -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 01:12:17PM -0500, nixlists wrote: The other problem, that gets mentioned is some people are forced to run -current because some packages will only work with -current, and backporting sucks for many reasons. Forgot to nitpick this one. *nobody* is *forced* to run -current. People *choose* to run -current because they want some given package *now*, even though that package doesn't exist in stable but *will be in the next release*, which means an average of *3 months to wait*. Just to put things in perspective...
Re: -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
I had read the faq many times before asking the question. I admit not just beforehand. I wasn't specific enough about my thought processes and asked too many questions at once, but thanks for all the insights. I've decided to use release when available and switch to current as needed. Out of interest how many members of the OpenBSD crew constantly track current. Do you mainly do that on testing and development machines? Do you watch for commits and merge those changes into /etc or keep userland close to current and occassionally sync /etc or update everything every few days, weeks or months and have a per system tailored update script that maybe uses sysmerge. The faq mentions flag days. I realise that snapshots would avoid this problem, but if I wanted to build a kernel. How would I check if today is a flag day. Thanks KeV
Re: -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:52 PM, trustlevel-...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: I had read the faq many times before asking the question. I admit not just beforehand. I wasn't specific enough about my thought processes and asked too many questions at once, but thanks for all the insights. I've decided to use release when available and switch to current as needed. ? Some reason for that? Out of interest how many members of the OpenBSD crew constantly track current. If you mean developers then I think that all of them use current. There's no point for them to use release/stable Do you mainly do that on testing and development machines? What's that? A lot of users use current on their production servers/laptops/desktops Do you watch for commits and merge those changes into /etc or keep userland close to current and occassionally sync /etc or update everything every few days, weeks or months and have a per system tailored update script that maybe uses sysmerge. Read FAQ : Keeping Things in Sync It is important to understand that OpenBSD is an Operating System, intended to be taken as a whole, not a kernel with a bunch of utilities stuck on. You must make sure your kernel, userland (the supporting utilities and files) and ports tree are all in sync, or unpleasant things will happen. Said another way (because people just keep making the error), you can not run brand new ports on a month old system, or rebuild a kernel from -current source and expect it to work with a -release userland. Yes, this does mean you need to upgrade your system if you want to run a new program which was added to the ports tree today. Sorry, but again, OpenBSD has limited resources available. and sysmerge(8) is great tool for upgrades either from release to release or from one snapshot to another. How often you will do that is on you. No one can now better then you. The faq mentions flag days. I realise that snapshots would avoid this problem, but if I wanted to build a kernel. How would I check if today is a flag day. If you are using snapshots then you don't need build kernel as you can do binary upgrades from snapshot to snapshot. Thanks KeV -- http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html
Re: -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
trustlevel-...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: I had read the faq many times before asking the question. I admit not just beforehand. I wasn't specific enough about my thought processes and asked too many questions at once, but thanks for all the insights. I've decided to use release when available and switch to current as needed. Out of interest how many members of the OpenBSD crew constantly track current. Do you mainly do that on testing and development machines? Do you watch for commits and merge those changes into /etc or keep userland close to current and occassionally sync /etc or update everything every few days, weeks or months and have a per system tailored update script that maybe uses sysmerge. The faq mentions flag days. I realise that snapshots would avoid this problem, but if I wanted to build a kernel. How would I check if today is a flag day. Thanks KeV I have been running -current on my Desktop for a good while now. I like the new features of -current a lot. But the risks of running -current in production are real. I finally decided to upgrade my server to -current to get the latest PostgreSQL, which I needed for an application. All was fine but I had a small bug. I upgraded once again to a -current a few days older. That broke apache because of the modules in -current packages were not in sync with a change in Apache. I had to use ports and needed help to finally vanquish the problem. So it is not for the faint of heart to run -current in production. But I don't regret it. I say go for it on the Desktop. I use disk instead of CD or FTP for my upgrades, just add a directory to root for that. Chris Bennett -- A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. -- Robert Heinlein
Re: -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
--- On Thu, 4/3/10, Tomas Bodzar tomas.bod...@gmail.com wrote: From: Tomas Bodzar tomas.bod...@gmail.com Subject: Re: -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question] To: trustlevel-...@yahoo.co.uk Cc: misc@openbsd.org Date: Thursday, 4 March, 2010, 14:37 On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:52 PM, trustlevel-...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: I had read the faq many times before asking the question. I admit not just beforehand. I wasn't specific enough about my thought processes and asked too many questions at once, but thanks for all the insights. I've decided to use release when available and switch to current as needed. Why not use the even more trusted and tested code from the cd at release time untill one of the few packages I need or one of it's dependencies breaks. Out of interest how many members of the OpenBSD crew constantly track current. I meant how often do they sync (everyday on i386?, I guess it would depend on what they were working on at the time and who with) Do you (anyone) manage /etc separately watching source commits/changes or just apply their changes each time it's replaced via script etc or simply leave it to be updated less frequently than the rest of the system. The faq mentions flag days. I realise that snapshots would avoid this problem, but if I wanted to build a kernel. How would I check if today is a flag day. If you are using snapshots then you don't need build kernel as you can do binary upgrades from snapshot to snapshot. I know, I did say snapshots would avoid that problem, but if I want to use an unsupported kernel configuration, how would I tell if it's a flag day, because the source simply won't fetch? Would it just mean an secondary mirror would stay a day or two old etc. p.s. I always keep a GENERIC around anyway. Thanks KeV
Re: -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 3:12 PM, trustlevel-...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: --- On Thu, 4/3/10, Tomas Bodzar tomas.bod...@gmail.com wrote: From: Tomas Bodzar tomas.bod...@gmail.com Subject: Re: -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question] To: trustlevel-...@yahoo.co.uk Cc: misc@openbsd.org Date: Thursday, 4 March, 2010, 14:37 On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:52 PM,B trustlevel-...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: I had read the faq many times before asking the question. I admit not just beforehand. I wasn't specific enough about my thought processes and asked too many questions at once, but thanks for all the insights. I've decided to use release when available and switch to current as needed. Why not use the even more trusted and tested code from the cd at release time untill one of the few packages I need or one of it's dependencies breaks. Developers of OpenBSD are doing great job so code from the cd or current is trusted for me. Why current? There is nice and simple manual for following stable in FAQ, but binary upgrade ; sysmerge ; binary update of packages is preferred for me instead of compiling kernel, userland, Out of interest how many members of the OpenBSD crew constantly track current. I meant how often do they sync (everyday on i386?, I guess it would depend on what they were working on at the time and who with) Do you (anyone) manage /etc separately watching source commits/changes or just apply their changes each time it's replaced via script etc or simply leave it to be updated less frequently than the rest of the system. Don't know how about others, but I use sysmerge(8) for managing of etc and xetc The faq mentions flag days. I realise that snapshots would avoid this problem, but if I wanted to build a kernel. How would I check if today is a flag day. If you are using snapshots then you don't need build kernel as you can do binary upgrades from snapshot to snapshot. I know, I did say snapshots would avoid that problem, but if I want to use an unsupported kernel configuration, how would I tell if it's a flag day, because the source simply won't fetch? Would it just mean an secondary mirror would stay a day or two old etc. Some special reason why to have custom kernel instead of GENERIC? p.s. I always keep a GENERIC around anyway. Thanks KeV -- http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html
Re: -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
trustlevel-...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: --- On Thu, 4/3/10, Tomas Bodzar tomas.bod...@gmail.com wrote: From: Tomas Bodzar tomas.bod...@gmail.com Subject: Re: -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question] To: trustlevel-...@yahoo.co.uk Cc: misc@openbsd.org Date: Thursday, 4 March, 2010, 14:37 On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:52 PM, trustlevel-...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: I had read the faq many times before asking the question. I admit not just beforehand. I wasn't specific enough about my thought processes and asked too many questions at once, but thanks for all the insights. I've decided to use release when available and switch to current as needed. Why not use the even more trusted and tested code from the cd at release time untill one of the few packages I need or one of it's dependencies breaks. Out of interest how many members of the OpenBSD crew constantly track current. I meant how often do they sync (everyday on i386?, I guess it would depend on what they were working on at the time and who with) Do you (anyone) manage /etc separately watching source commits/changes or just apply their changes each time it's replaced via script etc or simply leave it to be updated less frequently than the rest of the system. The faq mentions flag days. I realise that snapshots would avoid this problem, but if I wanted to build a kernel. How would I check if today is a flag day. If you are using snapshots then you don't need build kernel as you can do binary upgrades from snapshot to snapshot. I know, I did say snapshots would avoid that problem, but if I want to use an unsupported kernel configuration, how would I tell if it's a flag day, because the source simply won't fetch? Would it just mean an secondary mirror would stay a day or two old etc. p.s. I always keep a GENERIC around anyway. Thanks KeV -current is typically safer by default since all those errata in release versions are already fixed in -current snapshots. No patches, no builds. just update to latest snapshots, other than time to update packages, maybe 10-15 minutes or less -- A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. -- Robert Heinlein
Re: -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Chris Bennett ch...@bennettconstruction.biz wrote: -current is typically safer by default since all those errata in release versions are already fixed in -current snapshots. No patches, no builds. just update to latest snapshots, other than time to update packages, maybe 10-15 minutes or less But where are the latest security issues and stability issues likely to be found? In either release or current or just current, since current is being developed?
Re: -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
nixlists wrote: On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Chris Bennett ch...@bennettconstruction.biz wrote: -current is typically safer by default since all those errata in release versions are already fixed in -current snapshots. No patches, no builds. just update to latest snapshots, other than time to update packages, maybe 10-15 minutes or less But where are the latest security issues and stability issues likely to be found? In either release or current or just current, since current is being developed? You are talking about two separate issues. Stability is not related to security directly. The two are intricately combined but not the same. That is why there are two common errata for release: Reliability Security If you don't want to run -current, then don't. But if you use a package where a security or reliability issue comes up, and it is fixed in -current, you will need to backport it yourself. Hopefully you will send your work to -stable -- A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. -- Robert Heinlein
Re: -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Chris Bennett ch...@bennettconstruction.biz wrote: You are talking about two separate issues. Stability is not related to security directly. The two are intricately combined but not the same. But both are related to downtime and data loss. I understand stability bugs are likely to pop-up more often with current, and this has been my experience. Weird freezes without panic that I did not have with release/stabe, and some pf-related panics that went away with recent current. Anyway, I am still not clear where most security bugs are more likely to pop-up - in release or current, or either? Thanks.
Re: -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 11:58 AM, and...@msu.edu wrote: But both are related to downtime and data loss. I understand stability bugs are likely to pop-up more often with current, and this has been my experience. Weird freezes without panic that I did not have with release/stabe, and some pf-related panics that went away with recent current. Anyway, I am still not clear where most security bugs are more likely to pop-up - in release or current, or either? Thanks. For any established bug thats been around for a while before discovery, it will be in both -release and -current; established meaning existing for one more more releases. -Current can have bugs that are introduced during the development cycle. Typcially they are seen fairly quickly and stomped on quickly. I've lived on -current on my laptop for 8 years now, and the only time thats been a problem was rebuilding stuff during a hackathon. If you use -current, watch the pretty commits flow in, but refrain from jumping into the new code on your main machine, as I did. Test machines are of course a great idea. Thank you! Shouldn't this advice be good for inclusion on the following current page on the website? Also how does one find out when it's okay to jump into new code, given that one is a mortal sysadmin - not a C or system hacker who understands which commits could possibly be buggy?
Re: -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 11:44 -0500, nixlists nixmli...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Chris Bennett ch...@bennettconstruction.biz wrote: You are talking about two separate issues. Stability is not related to security directly. The two are intricately combined but not the same. But both are related to downtime and data loss. I understand stability bugs are likely to pop-up more often with current, and this has been my experience. Weird freezes without panic that I did not have with release/stabe I've had good experience with -current with no major stability problems. Of course, this is usage scenario 1) where I install a snapshot and use it for a few years before updating again before updating to -current again. Brad
Re: -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
Quoting nixlists nixmli...@gmail.com: On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Chris Bennett ch...@bennettconstruction.biz wrote: You are talking about two separate issues. Stability is not related to security directly. The two are intricately combined but not the same. But both are related to downtime and data loss. I understand stability bugs are likely to pop-up more often with current, and this has been my experience. Weird freezes without panic that I did not have with release/stabe, and some pf-related panics that went away with recent current. Anyway, I am still not clear where most security bugs are more likely to pop-up - in release or current, or either? Thanks. For any established bug thats been around for a while before discovery, it will be in both -release and -current; established meaning existing for one more more releases. -Current can have bugs that are introduced during the development cycle. Typcially they are seen fairly quickly and stomped on quickly. I've lived on -current on my laptop for 8 years now, and the only time thats been a problem was rebuilding stuff during a hackathon. If you use -current, watch the pretty commits flow in, but refrain from jumping into the new code on your main machine, as I did. Test machines are of course a great idea. --STeve Andre'
Re: -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
On 2010-3-4 6:44 PM, nixlists wrote: Anyway, I am still not clear where ... 'stable' refers to the APIs and ABIs. It also refers to the selection of packages and libraries and their versions. /Lars
Re: -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
Quoting nixlists nixmli...@gmail.com: On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 11:58 AM, and...@msu.edu wrote: But both are related to downtime and data loss. I understand stability bugs are likely to pop-up more often with current, and this has been my experience. Weird freezes without panic that I did not have with release/stabe, and some pf-related panics that went away with recent current. Anyway, I am still not clear where most security bugs are more likely to pop-up - in release or current, or either? Thanks. For any established bug thats been around for a while before discovery, it will be in both -release and -current; established meaning existing for one more more releases. -Current can have bugs that are introduced during the development cycle. Typcially they are seen fairly quickly and stomped on quickly. I've lived on -current on my laptop for 8 years now, and the only time thats been a problem was rebuilding stuff during a hackathon. If you use -current, watch the pretty commits flow in, but refrain from jumping into the new code on your main machine, as I did. Test machines are of course a great idea. Thank you! Shouldn't this advice be good for inclusion on the following current page on the website? Also how does one find out when it's okay to jump into new code, given that one is a mortal sysadmin - not a C or system hacker who understands which commits could possibly be buggy? If you don't have a good understanding of things, I'd say you should not follow -current on machines that are critical to you. I do use -current for my main infrastructure machines, but I always have a failsafe, namely the previous incarnation of the machine that I can fall back on in case of disaster. That, and of course TESTING the new -current machine before comtting to it! It's amazing (well, horrifying) how many people get some new machine set up and just assume that the newer version of X will be good. Following -current implies that you are subscribed to the src changes list, and read it consistently. When upgrading to the latest code you need to make sure that you aren't getting code in the middle of a comitt of some large thing, such that you have just a part of it. The CVS machines get their updates on some schedule, so its important to make sure that you aren't getting incomplete stuff. I run into this from time to time, but first assume that any build problem is mine. Usually I've shot myself somehow, or gotten an update in the middle. Every once in a while I bump into an actual problem which stops the build (breaking the tree) but that is pretty rare. OpenBSD is the only system I've seen where I can trust the development system to be usable (with testing). You can learn tons from watching -current. I have. But till you have experience with it, don't make it your main system. --STeve Andre'
Re: -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:28 PM, and...@msu.edu wrote: If you don't have a good understanding of things, I'd say you should By good understanding do you mean ability to read and write system code, and intimate familiarity with *nix internals? ... not follow -current on machines that are critical to you. I do use -current ... It seems the opinion on running current in production ranges from being overly optimistic to being very cautious. If running -current in production is only recommended for people who are intimately familiar with the internals, doesn't that exclude many if not most users? ... You can learn tons from watching -current. I have. But till you have experience with it, don't make it your main system. So more suitable for learning and playing with the latest stuff, but less suitable for running production stuff at this point? I just feel like someone is going to yell curmudgeon again. Thanks.
Re: -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 03:12:35PM -0500, nixlists wrote: On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:28 PM, and...@msu.edu wrote: If you don't have a good understanding of things, I'd say you should By good understanding do you mean ability to read and write system code, and intimate familiarity with *nix internals? I'd imagine he meant a basic understanding of unix systems in general. ... not follow -current on machines that are critical to you. I do use -current ... It seems the opinion on running current in production ranges from being overly optimistic to being very cautious. If running -current in production is only recommended for people who are intimately familiar with the internals, doesn't that exclude many if not most users? if intimate familiar[ity] with the internals means being able to damn read instructions, then yes. You're making this out to be far harder than it has to be. If you're able to follow instructions, you can run -stable or -current, the docs are there to do so. As to what each is, it's been discussed to death. Multiple times. Pick one, and get on with your life. Christ. ... You can learn tons from watching -current. I have. But till you have experience with it, don't make it your main system. So more suitable for learning and playing with the latest stuff, but less suitable for running production stuff at this point? I just feel Lots of people run -current on production machines with fewer bad experiences than running stable releases from other OSes. like someone is going to yell curmudgeon again. Thanks.
Re: -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 15:12 -0500, nixlists nixmli...@gmail.com wrote: It seems the opinion on running current in production ranges from being overly optimistic to being very cautious. If running -current in production is only recommended for people who are intimately familiar with the internals, doesn't that exclude many if not most users? You don't have to be an expert to run -current. If you can read and follow instructions, you can do it. The process is well-documented. It's like following a grand recipe while preparing a gourmet dish... most people (who can cook) can do it if they really want. Brad
Re: -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
Why don't you try it by yourself what's appropriate for you? I started with stable because I was scared from other systems that current is something worse and less stable then stable version (even stable version of those systems is something to be scared about). Now I'm using for about two years or more just current because I discovered that developers of OpenBSD really know what they are doing and they are doing it unbelievable perfect. Which is very different when comparing with other systems. No panics during this time, lose of data or similar problems. Just two times during this period I wasn't able to install some package because it needed newer snapshots. So binary upgrade and then voila package installed (this problem which you can have sometimes is described in FAQ). All others weren't problem of OpenBSD, but problem between keyboard and chair. Theo and others aren't idiots. They know what to do and how to do that. And because they don't care so much about number of users they can focus on quality instead of whining people. Other projects try to find as much users as possible or do ugly hacks or try to be nice on users, but trust me or not it just lead to crap. Yes, Theo can say to you that you rape children or something similar if you say something really stupid (:-D), but anyone can do mistake. The difference is if you can learn from it or not. If not then you will have problems all the time. What's worst for me? That I can't find similar OS project which focuses on quality. Looks like most of the people is content with crap. And not only in IT area. This is a real problem. Not stable and/or current decision. On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 9:12 PM, nixlists nixmli...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:28 PM, B and...@msu.edu wrote: If you don't have a good understanding of things, I'd say you should By good understanding do you mean ability to read and write system code, and intimate familiarity with *nix internals? ... not follow -current on machines that are critical to you. B I do use -current ... It seems the opinion on running current in production ranges from being overly optimistic to being very cautious. If running -current in production is only recommended for people who are intimately familiar with the internals, doesn't that exclude many if not most users? ... You can learn tons from watching -current. B I have. B But till you have experience with it, don't make it your main system. So more suitable for learning and playing with the latest stuff, but less suitable for running production stuff at this point? I just feel like someone is going to yell curmudgeon again. Thanks. -- http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html
Re: -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
On Thursday 04 March 2010 15:30:25 Bret S. Lambert wrote: On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 03:12:35PM -0500, nixlists wrote: On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:28 PM, and...@msu.edu wrote: If you don't have a good understanding of things, I'd say you should By good understanding do you mean ability to read and write system code, and intimate familiarity with *nix internals? I'd imagine he meant a basic understanding of unix systems in general. Yes, a basic understanding, plus the understanding that you need to catch a set of commits completely. That requires some understanding of the code at some level. Fortunately messing that up only means that you have to wait and update again, and not make the mistake of posting on a mailing list that something is wrong. I just did this, with the new distributed package builder that Marc Espie has redone--had I paid more attention, I would have seen that new stuff was added, which fixed the particular problem I had. ... not follow -current on machines that are critical to you. I do use -current ... It seems the opinion on running current in production ranges from being overly optimistic to being very cautious. If running -current in production is only recommended for people who are intimately familiar with the internals, doesn't that exclude many if not most users? if intimate familiar[ity] with the internals means being able to damn read instructions, then yes. You're making this out to be far harder than it has to be. If you're able to follow instructions, you can run -stable or -current, the docs are there to do so. What you need to be able to do is be able to jump back to a previous system if the new -current system does something bad. Now, this is just as true if you only jump from -stable to -stable system, but I have encountered a huge number of people who don't get the idea that an upgrade always has the possibility of messing up, and for a production system its a grand idea to be able to get back up, quickly. --STeve Andre' [snip]
Re: -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
Where does one find details of things like this? -- Ron McDowell San Antonio TX STeve Andre' wrote: --had I paid more attention, I would have seen that new stuff was added, which fixed the particular problem I had.
Re: -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
One doesn't find details like that because people doing this for fun don't write lists of details like that. Where does one find details of things like this? --had I paid more attention, I would have seen that new stuff was added, which fixed the particular problem I had.
Re: -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
On 05/03/10 01:33, Ron McDowell wrote: Where does one find details of things like this? If you mean about changes in -current, I monitor these two http://www.openbsd.org/faq/current.html http://www.openbsd.org/plus.html Giannis
Re: -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
Giannis, thank you for your helpful answer. -- Ron McDowell San Antonio TX Kapetanakis Giannis wrote: On 05/03/10 01:33, Ron McDowell wrote: Where does one find details of things like this? If you mean about changes in -current, I monitor these two http://www.openbsd.org/faq/current.html http://www.openbsd.org/plus.html Giannis
-current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
J.C. Roberts list-...@designtools.org writes: The short answer is painfully simple; if you're running OpenBSD as your desktop/laptop and you have a clue, then run just -current. These days, the -stable branch still exists primarily due to historical precedence for people unwilling to update their thinking. After 6 month using -current as desktop I was about to follow the opposite path and try to stay -stable (after 4.7 is released). Using -current, I sometimes have had to upgrade to the latest snapshot just because I wanted to install some new package and bumped into an error like not good version of libc. In fact, I thought that having a -release (and -stable) was a strength of OpenBSD (if not why put so much effort for that). -- Manuel Giraud
Re: -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 09:36:31AM +0100, Manuel Giraud wrote: J.C. Roberts list-...@designtools.org writes: The short answer is painfully simple; if you're running OpenBSD as your desktop/laptop and you have a clue, then run just -current. These days, the -stable branch still exists primarily due to historical precedence for people unwilling to update their thinking. After 6 month using -current as desktop I was about to follow the opposite path and try to stay -stable (after 4.7 is released). Using -current, I sometimes have had to upgrade to the latest snapshot just because I wanted to install some new package and bumped into an error like not good version of libc. Yes, you're running a development version, which means that when library bumps happen, you're going to have to deal with them. In fact, I thought that having a -release (and -stable) was a strength of OpenBSD (if not why put so much effort for that). Actually, most effort goes towards -current, with -stable only getting major security/reliability fixes. For a while, there weren't any -stable ports, due to a lack of manpower. -- Manuel Giraud
Re: -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
Manuel Giraud wrote: Using -current, I sometimes have had to upgrade to the latest snapshot just because I wanted to install some new package and bumped into an error like not good version of libc. In fact, I thought that having a -release (and -stable) was a strength of OpenBSD (if not why put so much effort for that). Huh? Let me get this straight. You want to use a *new* package. You have to use -current to get the new package. How do you figure running -stable will help? I'm with J.C. Roberts on this one. I got tired of seeing the cool kids playing with the new toys on -current, got over the (wrong) impression that -current is unstable, and started using -current with the goodies. I haven't looked back since. -- -RSM http://www.erratic.ca
Re: -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
Scott McEachern sc...@erratic.ca writes: Huh? Let me get this straight. You want to use a *new* package. You have to use -current to get the new package. How do you figure running -stable will help? I wasn't clear enough: by new package, I meant a package not installed on my system yet and not the bleeding edge version of one package. I'm with J.C. Roberts on this one. I got tired of seeing the cool kids playing with the new toys on -current, got over the (wrong) impression that -current is unstable, and started using -current with the goodies. I haven't looked back since. Maybe I'll stick to -current too. But I'd like to give try staying -stable for a while and I could still play with the new toys every 6 month anyway. I wonder why does the FAQ recommend -stable over -current? -- Manuel Giraud
Re: -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
Manuel Giraud wrote: I wasn't clear enough: by new package, I meant a package not installed on my system yet and not the bleeding edge version of one package. Ah ok, sorry, I misunderstood. Maybe I'll stick to -current too. But I'd like to give try staying -stable for a while and I could still play with the new toys every 6 month anyway. I wonder why does the FAQ recommend -stable over -current? From the FAQ: Put bluntly, the best version of OpenBSD is /-current/. Please read the FAQ. It is explained why there are situations where -stable is more _suitable_ for some people, -current for others. -- -RSM http://www.erratic.ca
Re: -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 13:21:47 +0100 Manuel Giraud manuel.gir...@univ-nantes.fr wrote: Scott McEachern sc...@erratic.ca writes: Huh? Let me get this straight. You want to use a *new* package. You have to use -current to get the new package. How do you figure running -stable will help? I wasn't clear enough: by new package, I meant a package not installed on my system yet and not the bleeding edge version of one package. I'm with J.C. Roberts on this one. I got tired of seeing the cool kids playing with the new toys on -current, got over the (wrong) impression that -current is unstable, and started using -current with the goodies. I haven't looked back since. Maybe I'll stick to -current too. But I'd like to give try staying -stable for a while and I could still play with the new toys every 6 month anyway. I wonder why does the FAQ recommend -stable over -current? The -stable branch requires less work and less knowledge. If you are new to OpenBSD or new to UNIX in general, the -stable branch is a nice and simple place to start. Also, it gives that warm comfy feeling to the tired, battle scared sysadmins who wander in out of the cold, and it keeps the management types happy due to the required buzzwords. There's a story I remember reading about an OpenBSD user from Japan (possibly Mark Uemura?) who met an interesting fellow at a conference who asked what operating system he was running on his laptop. The OpenBSD user proudly stated, I'm running OpenBSD X.Y Stable, and the interesting fellow replied, You should be running current. Said interesting fellow turned out to be Theo. -jcr
Re: -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 09:02 -0500, Scott McEachern sc...@erratic.ca wrote: Manuel Giraud wrote: I wasn't clear enough: by new package, I meant a package not installed on my system yet and not the bleeding edge version of one package. Ah ok, sorry, I misunderstood. Maybe I'll stick to -current too. But I'd like to give try staying -stable for a while and I could still play with the new toys every 6 month anyway. I wonder why does the FAQ recommend -stable over -current? From the FAQ: Put bluntly, the best version of OpenBSD is /-current/. Please read the FAQ. It is explained why there are situations where -stable is more _suitable_ for some people, -current for others. If -stable does not work for you, there are at least two ways (in my mind) to use -current. 1. Download today's snapshot, which is -current, along with the ports.tar.gz that comes with it and then install and use that for months without actively following -current. Basically, you don't try to keep up and are only -current for a short while. I do that sometimes and have never had an issue. At times you may end up with a funky system that is not -stable or -current but it works just fine and has appropriate documentation. 2. Download today's snapshot, which is -current, and then actively keep up with the source tree. Most people probably use -current in this fashion and this is probably the way the developers intend for it to be used. As a user, I can only speak for myself, but having used -current in both ways, I can say that either approach works. Brad
Re: -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
J.C. Roberts list-...@designtools.org writes: There's a story I remember reading about an OpenBSD user from Japan (possibly Mark Uemura?) who met an interesting fellow at a conference who asked what operating system he was running on his laptop. The OpenBSD user proudly stated, I'm running OpenBSD X.Y Stable, and the interesting fellow replied, You should be running current. Said interesting fellow turned out to be Theo. It's good to know that -current stays such a stable system. But I think that the 6 month release cycle is good thing in OpenBSD. -- Manuel Giraud
Re: -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 17:43:18 +0100 Manuel Giraud manuel.gir...@univ-nantes.fr wrote: J.C. Roberts list-...@designtools.org writes: There's a story I remember reading about an OpenBSD user from Japan (possibly Mark Uemura?) who met an interesting fellow at a conference who asked what operating system he was running on his laptop. The OpenBSD user proudly stated, I'm running OpenBSD X.Y Stable, and the interesting fellow replied, You should be running current. Said interesting fellow turned out to be Theo. It's good to know that -current stays such a stable system. But I think that the 6 month release cycle is good thing in OpenBSD. Yes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7pkyDUX5uM --
Re: -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Scott McEachern wrote: Manuel Giraud wrote: Maybe I'll stick to -current too. But I'd like to give try staying -stable for a while and I could still play with the new toys every 6 month anyway. I wonder why does the FAQ recommend -stable over -current? From the FAQ: Put bluntly, the best version of OpenBSD is /-current/. The FAQ does say that, but in context it's not a recommendation for everyone to run current. Please read the FAQ. It is explained why there are situations where -stable is more _suitable_ for some people, -current for others. That part of section 5.1 currently clearly recommends that most users run stable or release: In fact, as our hope is to continually improve OpenBSD, the goal is that -current should be more reliable, more secure, and of course, have greater features than -stable. Put bluntly, the best version of OpenBSD is -current. Most users should be running either -stable or -release. That being said, many people do run -current on production systems, and it is important that people do so to identify bugs and test new features. However, if you don't know how to properly describe, diagnose and deal with a problem, don't tell yourself (or anyone else) that you are helping the project by running -current. It didn't work! is not a useful bug report. The recent changes to the pciide driver broke compatibility with my Slugchip-based IDE interface, dmesg of working and broken systems follow... might be a useful report. There are times when normal users may wish to live on the cutting edge and run -current. The most common reason is that the user has a device which is not supported by -release (and thus, not -stable), or wishes to use a new feature of the -current. In this case, the choice may be either -current or not using the device, and -current may be the lesser evil. However, one should not expect hand-holding from the developers. Dave -- Dave Anderson d...@daveanderson.com
