Re: CVS removal from the base
Doug Barton wrote: [...] The fact that we have so many people who are radically change-averse, no matter how rational the change; is a bug, not a feature. This particular bug is complicated dramatically by the fact that the majority view seems to lean heavily towards If I use it, it must be the default and/or in the base rather than seeing ports as part of the overall operating SYSTEM. You are right in general, except one small factor. We are talking about bootstrap. CVS is used by many as the one of the ways to get the sources to the freshly installed system to recompile to the last available source. It will become inconvenient to do it through the process of installing some ports for that. Especially if corresponding ports would require some other ports as dependences. rik Doug ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: CVS removal from the base
The fact that we have so many people who are radically change-averse, no matter how rational the change; is a bug, not a feature. This particular bug is complicated dramatically by the fact that the majority view seems to lean heavily towards If I use it, it must be the default and/or in the base rather than seeing ports as part of the overall operating SYSTEM. I don't think of myself as change-averse. I've been using FreeBSD since 1996, and there have been lots of changes since that time. But two of the most important reasons I still use FreeBSD are: - Stability: Both in the sense of stays up basically forever, and in the sense of changes to interfaces and commands are carefully thought through and not applied indiscriminately. For instance, I like very much the fact that the ifconfig command can configure VLANs etc - while Linux has introduced new commands to do this. - The base system is a *system* and comes with most of what I need, for instance tcpdump and BIND. For me the fact that I don't need to install lots of packages to have a usable system is a *good* thing. You are right in general, except one small factor. We are talking about bootstrap. CVS is used by many as the one of the ways to get the sources to the freshly installed system to recompile to the last available source. It will become inconvenient to do it through the process of installing some ports for that. Especially if corresponding ports would require some other ports as dependences. I use CVS (or rather csup) to keep the base system up to date. I would be perfectly okay with using a different utility - however, I would strongly prefer that this utility was included in the base system. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: CVS removal from the base
Jase Thew wrote: On 03/12/2011 09:21, Roman Kurakin wrote: Doug Barton wrote: [...] The fact that we have so many people who are radically change-averse, no matter how rational the change; is a bug, not a feature. This particular bug is complicated dramatically by the fact that the majority view seems to lean heavily towards If I use it, it must be the default and/or in the base rather than seeing ports as part of the overall operating SYSTEM. You are right in general, except one small factor. We are talking about bootstrap. CVS is used by many as the one of the ways to get the sources to the freshly installed system to recompile to the last available source. It will become inconvenient to do it through the process of installing some ports for that. Especially if corresponding ports would require some other ports as dependences. As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, CVS doesn't cover csup, a utility in base which allows you to obtain the source trivially for the scenario you provide above. (Explicity ignoring cvsup which requires a port). Does csup allows to checkout a random version from local cvs mirror? So better to say csup(cvsup) does not cover cvs. rik Regards, Jase. ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: CVS removal from the base
Rik, On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Roman Kurakin r...@inse.ru wrote: The fact that we have so many people who are radically change-averse, no matter how rational the change; is a bug, not a feature. This particular bug is complicated dramatically by the fact that the majority view seems to lean heavily towards If I use it, it must be the default and/or in the base rather than seeing ports as part of the overall operating SYSTEM. You are right in general, except one small factor. We are talking about bootstrap. CVS is used by many as the one of the ways to get the sources to the freshly installed system to recompile to the last available source. It will become inconvenient to do it through the process of installing some ports for that. Especially if corresponding ports would require some other ports as dependences. Do you really use CVS and not cvsup/csup? CVS != csup. Max ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: CVS removal from the base
Hello! On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 8:03 PM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote: I use CVS (or rather csup) to keep the base system up to date. I would be perfectly okay with using a different utility - however, I would strongly prefer that this utility was included in the base system. CVS != csup. I wonder how many people will express their sentiments about CVS when they really mean cvsup/csup. Max ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: CVS removal from the base
Max Khon f...@samodelkin.net wrote: As soon as ports/ (and doc/) are moved to SVN I do not see any compelling reasons for keeping CVS in the base system. Those who still use it for development can install ports/devel/opencvs Rather ports/devel/cvs-devel. Maybe we still need a regular cvs port. -- Christian naddy Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: CVS removal from the base
On 12/2/11 4:27 AM, Max Khon wrote: In my opinion it is just another piece of bitrot that resides in the base system for no real reasons. I agree, especially since all the development work is being done on SVN and then is exported back to CVS, if I am not mistaken[1]. We've done the hard part, moving the majority of development over to SVN. [1]: http://people.freebsd.org/~peter/svn_notes.txt -- Sean M. Collins ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: CVS removal from the base
On Sat, 3 Dec 2011, Max Khon wrote: Hello! On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 8:03 PM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote: I use CVS (or rather csup) to keep the base system up to date. I would be perfectly okay with using a different utility - however, I would strongly prefer that this utility was included in the base system. CVS != csup. I wonder how many people will express their sentiments about CVS when they really mean cvsup/csup. We also use CVS (not cvsup/csup) after installing a fresh system. We mirror the CVS repo on an internal machine, then use CVS to checkout the latest HEAD or -stable from the internal mirror. The checkout from the internal mirror is much faster than trying to do it over our internet link (and that doesn't always work - we may not even be connected to the internet at times). Note that no ports are needed to update a system in this scenario. Also note that I can checkout any branch or from any known good date where the system builds and works. I would love to mirror the SVN repo in the same way and have an 'svn' in base, or at least something that could replace CVS in the above scenario. -- DE ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: CVS removal from the base
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Max Khon f...@samodelkin.net wrote: Hello! I know that it is too early to speak about this, but I would like the dust in the mailing lists to settle down before real actions can be taken. As soon as ports/ (and doc/) are moved to SVN I do not see any compelling reasons for keeping CVS in the base system. Those who still use it for development can install ports/devel/opencvs (like all the src/ developers do for ports/devel/subversion/). In my opinion it is just another piece of bitrot that resides in the base system for no real reasons. This bitrot is being used daily here. And very heavily at that, thank you very much. Not every CVS repo is easily converted into newfangled SVN, GIT, Mercurial etc.. repos; thus moving away from CVS in real life is sometimes pretty painful, if not utterly impossible (without heavy hacking and tweaking). I realize how much better and easier to use those new SCMs are, but CVS still has its uses. Please refrain from killing functionality that is often needed out-of-the-box on machines with no ports installed. I understand the desire to move as much as possible from our userland to ports and to end up with a minimal system, but isn't this getting a bit too eager? Max Thanks, -cpghost. -- Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/ ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: CVS removal from the base
Max Khon wrote: Rik, On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Roman Kurakin r...@inse.ru wrote: The fact that we have so many people who are radically change-averse, no matter how rational the change; is a bug, not a feature. This particular bug is complicated dramatically by the fact that the majority view seems to lean heavily towards If I use it, it must be the default and/or in the base rather than seeing ports as part of the overall operating SYSTEM. You are right in general, except one small factor. We are talking about bootstrap. CVS is used by many as the one of the ways to get the sources to the freshly installed system to recompile to the last available source. It will become inconvenient to do it through the process of installing some ports for that. Especially if corresponding ports would require some other ports as dependences. Do you really use CVS and not cvsup/csup? CVS != csup. I use ctm/csup to get(update) CVS source tree and cvs to checkout the exact version I need. Having cvs tree locally it is more convenient to keep one central repo for updating local systems based on different branches and to roll back a little bit for example with the ports tree in case I can't upgrade all needed ports to current for some reasons and got some problems with dependences. I can have what ever development system on the development machine, but unlikely I'll have one on all production systems by default since of additional potentially buggy packages, additional dependences, additional upgrade problems etc. rik Max ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: CVS removal from the base
On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 1:21 AM, Roman Kurakin r...@inse.ru wrote: Doug Barton wrote: [...] The fact that we have so many people who are radically change-averse, no matter how rational the change; is a bug, not a feature. This particular bug is complicated dramatically by the fact that the majority view seems to lean heavily towards If I use it, it must be the default and/or in the base rather than seeing ports as part of the overall operating SYSTEM. You are right in general, except one small factor. We are talking about bootstrap. CVS is used by many as the one of the ways to get the sources to the freshly installed system to recompile to the last available source. It will become inconvenient to do it through the process of installing some ports for that. Especially if corresponding ports would require some other ports as dependencies. I have to agree with Roman. It's simply far too early to think of removing cvs from the base OS. If we can come up with a way to replace the functionality of csup with svn under it, that would be great, but it may be a long time coming. Until it does, cvs needs to remain with all of the awkwardness of maintaining cvs when the actual source of truth is in svn. The time will hopefully come, but I don't see it in the 10.0 time frame. OTOH, I can see Doug's argument. I'm sure that, even when no real need exists for CVS in the base, I imagine there will be loud objections to its removal, though I suspect Doug's comments were largely spawned by the debate on the default setting for building profile libraries. (And, IMHO, Doug is right on that one.) -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer E-mail: kob6...@gmail.com ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: CVS removal from the base
Hi Daniel; --- On Sat, 12/3/11, Daniel Eischen deisc...@freebsd.org wrote: ... I would love to mirror the SVN repo in the same way and have an 'svn' in base, or at least something that could replace CVS in the above scenario. I have to say I am surprised by all the people that still use CVS (for their own good reasons). It still would be helpful if cvs users could evaluate OpenCVS: it's been experimental for ages now. It does seem to have some advantage (other than the license) in that it's smaller and better maintained (or at least not too dead). cheers, Pedro. ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Third party apps in base [was CVS removal...]
Hi. I have many dependencies on CVS that I 'need' 'out of the box'. Yet at the same time, I would not mind at all if it went to ports. In fact, and from a general position regarding all third party apps, I encourage it. Mostly because they are not authored or maintained by FreeBSD. Yet they are integrated, often in ways that need work to remove and/or manage separately. Such as when the upstream drops a feature version and FreeBSD only drops security/stability patches. If a lighter method than ports is desired, all the third party apps have binary packages (/pub/FreeBSD/ports/packages/All). And even pkg_add can be skipped if that's too heavy. The bit of extra work at install time isn't much, especially when your install already does a bunch of scripted localization. And as an aside, with what to this writer seems to be the majority of the world moving to git... I think it should now properly become user/admin choice as to which to install from ports/packages/source. Rather than say, being equally agnostic/fair in the other direction by including them all to satisfy all whims. The only justified exception I see would be to include whichever one is used by the master repository itself, which today is SVN. And as a topic for another thread, I think even that should be switched to git within the next couple years. And as another topic for another thread... the same goes for the various current methods of source (and other) distribution of the FreeBSD project. I'd be quite happy to see rsync become authoritative and even replace all of them. Lastly, regarding baking and planning... making more use of the wiki to document the FreeBSD timeline would be interesting. While distant dates my not be known, features and dependancies usually are. ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: CVS removal from the base
On 12/03/2011 17:29, Sean M. Collins wrote: [...] all the development work is being done on SVN and then is exported back to CVS, if I am not mistaken[1]. [...] Aren't ports still updated with CVS? Cheers Michiel ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: CVS removal from the base
On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Michiel Boland mich...@boland.org wrote: On 12/03/2011 17:29, Sean M. Collins wrote: [...] all the development work is being done on SVN and then is exported back to CVS, if I am not mistaken[1]. [...] Aren't ports still updated with CVS? Just to back up that point: until CVS is completely unused by releng (docs, ports are still done via CVS), it really shouldn't be removed from base (no matter how broken or undeveloped it is). WITHOUT_CVS (assuming that the knob actually works as advertised unlike many of our other knobs -- which last time I checked did in fact work) in /etc/src.conf suffices for now. Thanks, -Garrett off-topic I used to work with a group that used CVS extensively for managing changes to FreeBSD. It made my life a lot easier when we need to evaluate changes to code with FreeBSD to ensure we were license compliant.. it was very difficult to have to wade through with Protex Blackduck because it tosses up a ton of false positives, so any way we could avoid doing that by using an SCM that produces sane output which cv?sup doesn't currently do, all for the better. /off-topic ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Sil3124 + Sil4726 PortMultipier and FreeBSD9
hail, I've heard great things about sil3124 and FreeBSD 8+ (saw mav@ talking in lists and forum). But I'm planning a home server, I already have an Atom board from Intel (old Atom 330), Soekris 6501-70 and Sil3124 PCI. I saw that both ICH7 and NM10 can't deal with port multipliers, so my focus is on the Sil3124 now. I heard from internet that Sil4726+SIl3124 got random resets, although that was some time ago and on linux lists. So as I'm about to buy the Port Multiplier, and as I'll run FreeBSD 9 on it, anyone here have any experiences on this regard and is willing to share ? this is a small footprint server, I plan to have 6-8 disks and may become ZFS based. I plan to buy this port multiplier http://www.addonics.com/products/ad5sahpm-ea.php thanks, matheus -- Vítima da Oi entre 2007 e 2011. We will call you cygnus, The God of balance you shall be A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Sil3124 + Sil4726 PortMultipier and FreeBSD9
On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Nenhum_de_Nos math...@eternamente.info wrote: hail, I've heard great things about sil3124 and FreeBSD 8+ (saw mav@ talking in lists and forum). But I'm planning a home server, I already have an Atom board from Intel (old Atom 330), Soekris 6501-70 and Sil3124 PCI. I saw that both ICH7 and NM10 can't deal with port multipliers, so my focus is on the Sil3124 now. I heard from internet that Sil4726+SIl3124 got random resets, although that was some time ago and on linux lists. So as I'm about to buy the Port Multiplier, and as I'll run FreeBSD 9 on it, anyone here have any experiences on this regard and is willing to share ? this is a small footprint server, I plan to have 6-8 disks and may become ZFS based. I plan to buy this port multiplier http://www.addonics.com/products/ad5sahpm-ea.php What are your requirements (need compile toolchain, needs to be a fileserver, etc)? Thanks, -Garrett ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Sil3124 + Sil4726 PortMultipier and FreeBSD9
On Sat, December 3, 2011 21:06, Garrett Cooper wrote: On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Nenhum_de_Nos math...@eternamente.info wrote: hail, I've heard great things about sil3124 and FreeBSD 8+ (saw mav@ talking in lists and forum). But I'm planning a home server, I already have an Atom board from Intel (old Atom 330), Soekris 6501-70 and Sil3124 PCI. I saw that both ICH7 and NM10 can't deal with port multipliers, so my focus is on the Sil3124 now. I heard from internet that Sil4726+SIl3124 got random resets, although that was some time ago and on linux lists. So as I'm about to buy the Port Multiplier, and as I'll run FreeBSD 9 on it, anyone here have any experiences on this regard and is willing to share ? this is a small footprint server, I plan to have 6-8 disks and may become ZFS based. I plan to buy this port multiplier http://www.addonics.com/products/ad5sahpm-ea.php What are your requirements (need compile toolchain, needs to be a fileserver, etc)? Mail purpose is fileserver. As my current fileserver is underused, it also servers some mail backup, svn, http and some other light use services. As a fileserver, it has a half dozen clients, the other services, almost just me. thanks, matheus -- Vítima da Oi entre 2007 e 2011. We will call you cygnus, The God of balance you shall be A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: CVS removal from the base
On 12/3/2011 5:03 AM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote: The fact that we have so many people who are radically change-averse, no matter how rational the change; is a bug, not a feature. This particular bug is complicated dramatically by the fact that the majority view seems to lean heavily towards If I use it, it must be the default and/or in the base rather than seeing ports as part of the overall operating SYSTEM. I don't think of myself as change-averse. I've been using FreeBSD since 1996, and there have been lots of changes since that time. But two of the most important reasons I still use FreeBSD are: - Stability: Both in the sense of stays up basically forever, and in the sense of changes to interfaces and commands are carefully thought through and not applied indiscriminately. For instance, I like very much the fact that the ifconfig command can configure VLANs etc - while Linux has introduced new commands to do this. Agreed. - The base system is a *system* and comes with most of what I need, for instance tcpdump and BIND. For me the fact that I don't need to install lots of packages to have a usable system is a *good* thing. So 2 things here that I really wish people would think about. 1. If you're using *any* ports/packages then you're already participating in the larger operating *system* that I described, so installing a few more won't hurt. (Seriously, it won't.) 2. In (the very few) areas where integration of 3rd party apps into the base makes sense, no problem. But at this point the fact that a lot of 3rd party stuff is changing more rapidly than it used to, and often in incompatible ways and/or at incompatible schedules with our release process, means that we have to re-think how we do this. You mentioned BIND, which is a great example of 2. above. I'll have more to say about this soon, but my plan is to remove it from the base for 10.x because the current situation is unmanageable. The FOSS world has changed a lot in the last 20 years, and decisions that were made in the early days, while appropriate at the time, need to be reexamined. I use CVS (or rather csup) to keep the base system up to date. The point has been made before, but you do realize that cvs and csup are 2 completely different things, and that noone is recommending removal of csup from the base, right? Doug -- We could put the whole Internet into a book. Too practical. Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/ ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: CVS removal from the base
On 12/3/2011 1:21 AM, Roman Kurakin wrote: Doug Barton wrote: [...] The fact that we have so many people who are radically change-averse, no matter how rational the change; is a bug, not a feature. This particular bug is complicated dramatically by the fact that the majority view seems to lean heavily towards If I use it, it must be the default and/or in the base rather than seeing ports as part of the overall operating SYSTEM. You are right in general, except one small factor. We are talking about bootstrap. You realize that you just 100% demonstrated the truth of what I wrote above, right? :) CVS is used by many as the one of the ways to get the sources to the freshly installed system to recompile to the last available source. It will become inconvenient to do it through the process of installing some ports for that. Especially if corresponding ports would require some other ports as dependences. I want to ask some serious questions here, because I genuinely want to understand your thought process. 1. Do you install *any* ports/packages on a new system before you update the source? 2. If so, why is installing one more unthinkable? 3. Why is it a problem if the port/package you need to install in the early stages has dependencies? Thanks, Doug -- We could put the whole Internet into a book. Too practical. Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/ ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Sil3124 + Sil4726 PortMultipier and FreeBSD9
Why not just run FreeNAS? Adrian ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: CVS removal from the base
The problem I have with all of this is pretty simple. With the CVS in base, it's treated like the (mostly) rest of the system in a stable release - ie, people don't simply keep updating it to the latest and greatest without some testing. If there are any critical bugs or security flaws, they're backported. The port isn't upgraded unless it has to be, and then if it's a major update, there are plenty of eyeballs to review it. It's in /src, after all. But with ports, the ports tree only has the latest version or two; sometimes a few major versions to choose from (eg apache), but we don't maintain the same kind of package versions that Linux operating system packages do. So it's entirely possible the CVS port maintainer updates the port to the latest and greatest, which works for him - and it breaks someone's older CVS repository somehow. I'd be happier with the idea of things moving into ports if the ports tree did have stable snapshots which had incremental patches for bug/security fixes, rather than upgrade to whatever the port maintainer chooses. I'm all for change, but it seems those pushing forward change seem to be far exceeding the comfortable level of more conservative people; or those with real needs. Those who have relied on FreeBSD's stable release source tree being that - stable - whilst ports moves along with the latest and greatest as needed. It doesn't matter that you may do a fantastic job with a stable CVS port - what matters is how people perceive what you're doing. It just takes one perceived screwup here for the view to shift that freebsd is going the way of linux. And then we lose a whole lot of what public good opinion FreeBSD has. ;-) 2c, Adrian ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Sil3124 + Sil4726 PortMultipier and FreeBSD9
On Sun, December 4, 2011 00:32, Adrian Chadd wrote: Why not just run FreeNAS? thanks for the tip on FreeNAS, as others said too. will it run some other services, as http server for some stuff (wiki for example), edonkey and torrent clients, and some other stuff ? (I will visit the FreeNAS site and try to figure out) although it would solve the problem on configuring the box, I still have the doubts on the port multiplier being usefull on it, as FreeNAS will end on FreeBSD :) this port multiplier will work ok ? On Sil3124 and which others ? the tip on FreeNAS was great, but my main concern here is the sata hardware compatibility. I'd like to buy it knowing it will work :) thanks, matheus -- Vítima da Oi entre 2007 e 2011. We will call you cygnus, The God of balance you shall be A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Sil3124 + Sil4726 PortMultipier and FreeBSD9
On Sun, December 4, 2011 00:46, Nenhum_de_Nos wrote: On Sun, December 4, 2011 00:32, Adrian Chadd wrote: Why not just run FreeNAS? thanks for the tip on FreeNAS, as others said too. will it run some other services, as http server for some stuff (wiki for example), edonkey and torrent clients, and some other stuff ? (I will visit the FreeNAS site and try to figure out) although it would solve the problem on configuring the box, I still have the doubts on the port multiplier being usefull on it, as FreeNAS will end on FreeBSD :) this port multiplier will work ok ? On Sil3124 and which others ? the tip on FreeNAS was great, but my main concern here is the sata hardware compatibility. I'd like to buy it knowing it will work :) thanks, matheus http://www.freenas.org/category/version-comparison unfortunately FreeNAS 8 won't be happy with less than 4GB RAM (I have 2GB on both hardware), and version 8 won't have http and torrent :( so far, I'll do as today and run FreeBSD 9 on its original form :) still looking for the port multiplier case, though. thanks, matheus -- Vítima da Oi entre 2007 e 2011. We will call you cygnus, The God of balance you shall be A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org -- Vítima da Oi entre 2007 e 2011. We will call you cygnus, The God of balance you shall be A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: CVS removal from the base
On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 9:40 PM, Adrian Chadd adr...@freebsd.org wrote: The problem I have with all of this is pretty simple. With the CVS in base, it's treated like the (mostly) rest of the system in a stable release - ie, people don't simply keep updating it to the latest and greatest without some testing. If there are any critical bugs or security flaws, they're backported. The port isn't upgraded unless it has to be, and then if it's a major update, there are plenty of eyeballs to review it. It's in /src, after all. But with ports, the ports tree only has the latest version or two; sometimes a few major versions to choose from (eg apache), but we don't maintain the same kind of package versions that Linux operating system packages do. So it's entirely possible the CVS port maintainer updates the port to the latest and greatest, which works for him - and it breaks someone's older CVS repository somehow. I'd be happier with the idea of things moving into ports if the ports tree did have stable snapshots which had incremental patches for bug/security fixes, rather than upgrade to whatever the port maintainer chooses. I'm all for change, but it seems those pushing forward change seem to be far exceeding the comfortable level of more conservative people; or those with real needs. Those who have relied on FreeBSD's stable release source tree being that - stable - whilst ports moves along with the latest and greatest as needed. It doesn't matter that you may do a fantastic job with a stable CVS port - what matters is how people perceive what you're doing. It just takes one perceived screwup here for the view to shift that freebsd is going the way of linux. And then we lose a whole lot of what public good opinion FreeBSD has. ;-) 2c, Adrian Over the years , by installing and studying many operating system distributions , my opinions for FreeBSD has been converged toward the following : Supplying only a console-mode FreeBSD as a release is making FreeBSD unusable for peoples who they are not computing experts . To allow less experienced people to use FreeBSD easily , it is necessary to include a selected ports/packages into release distributions , therefore into so-called BASE as a /ports or /packages part . When a new FreeBSD release will be installed , it is becoming necessary to install many packages additionally , and setting many parameters in the *.conf , etc. , files to make it usable . One unfortunate situation is that some packages are NOT working at the release moment . In the packages tree , it seems that there is no any regular update policy for a specific release . It is possible to make port_name , but this is NOT so much usable also : For a specific package , which is installing within less than 30 minutes by pkg_add , required more than eighteen hours by make ... . Reason was that MAKE is an extremely STUPID system ( without BRAIN ) because , it is NOT able to remember that it has completed making a package part a few seconds before , and it is starting the same steps to apply up to the point that it is not necessary to make it once more ( after applying many steps which was applied before ) . One immediate reaction to such an idea is to mention PC-BSD . If the PC-BSD is the solution , what is the reason of maintaining a large FreeBSD ports tree and consuming a huge amount of efforts to manage a so large repository ? Another possibility is FreeBSD/Debian combination . When compared to Linux/Debian , it is unusable also , because , I do NOT know the reason , it is VERY slow . I am NOT suggesting to include as many packages as possible : Just an OPTIMUM number of packages to allow the users to have a working installation out of the box . It is possible to obtain an idea if there is a statistics set about downloaded packages by pkg_add . After setting a percentage to satisfy user needs , it will be easy to make a list of packages to include . Even myself I am NOT using FreeBSD , because I am NOT able to use it : For example , 9.0 RC2 : There is NO KDE4 at this moment , KDE3 is NOT working , GNOME2 is NOT working , the others I am NOT using because they are not capable as much as KDE or GNOME . If such a selected packages maintained within BASE /ports , or /packages , there will NOT be such difficulties to use the FreeBSD ( difficulty is transferred from the user to FreeBSD teams ) . Thank you very much . Mehmet Erol Sanliturk ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: CVS removal from the base
On 4 December 2011 11:59, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk m.e.sanlit...@gmail.com wrote: Supplying only a console-mode FreeBSD as a release is making FreeBSD unusable for peoples who they are not computing experts . And the PCBSD crowd have stepped up to fill this gap. So we're free to concentrate on doing what we're good at, those who are good at polish and gui stuff can concentrate on what they're good at, and we just communicate well :) Thus, I don't even see this as a problem. I'm even using pcbsd 9, because guis are easy for doing desktop/VM development. ;) Adrian ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: CVS removal from the base
On 03/12/2011 14:48, Roman Kurakin wrote: Jase Thew wrote: On 03/12/2011 09:21, Roman Kurakin wrote: [SNIP] You are right in general, except one small factor. We are talking about bootstrap. CVS is used by many as the one of the ways to get the sources to the freshly installed system to recompile to the last available source. It will become inconvenient to do it through the process of installing some ports for that. Especially if corresponding ports would require some other ports as dependences. As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, CVS doesn't cover csup, a utility in base which allows you to obtain the source trivially for the scenario you provide above. (Explicity ignoring cvsup which requires a port). Does csup allows to checkout a random version from local cvs mirror? So better to say csup(cvsup) does not cover cvs. Not quite sure what you are referring to by random version. But csup certainly allows you to obtain the source as described in your scenario above (last available source, even source at a particular point in time). Also, when I said CVS doesn't cover csup, I meant any removal of CVS from base would still leave csup available for obtaining source. Regards, Jase. ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Sil3124 + Sil4726 PortMultipier and FreeBSD9
On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 7:21 PM, Nenhum_de_Nos math...@eternamente.info wrote: On Sun, December 4, 2011 00:46, Nenhum_de_Nos wrote: On Sun, December 4, 2011 00:32, Adrian Chadd wrote: Why not just run FreeNAS? thanks for the tip on FreeNAS, as others said too. will it run some other services, as http server for some stuff (wiki for example), edonkey and torrent clients, and some other stuff ? (I will visit the FreeNAS site and try to figure out) although it would solve the problem on configuring the box, I still have the doubts on the port multiplier being usefull on it, as FreeNAS will end on FreeBSD :) this port multiplier will work ok ? On Sil3124 and which others ? the tip on FreeNAS was great, but my main concern here is the sata hardware compatibility. I'd like to buy it knowing it will work :) thanks, matheus http://www.freenas.org/category/version-comparison unfortunately FreeNAS 8 won't be happy with less than 4GB RAM (I have 2GB on both hardware), and version 8 won't have http and torrent :( Torrenting is available in the FreeNAS base, just not from the GUI. I can give you more tips about this if need be offline. so far, I'll do as today and run FreeBSD 9 on its original form :) still looking for the port multiplier case, though. From ye great Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_multiplier): This also hampers the use of Native Command Queuing (NCQ). This means that the full bandwidth of the link will most likely not be used. This kind of switching is therefore used when capacity is the major concern, and not performance. Sounds like port multipliers make the bus count = 1 (i.e. cable or controller fails and your entire storage array is toast) with less benefit than using a traditional HBA or hardware RAID controller _... Cheers, -Garrett ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
