Re: CVS removal from the base
Christian Laursen wrote: [...] I use CVS myself from time to time, but I see no need for it to be in base for that reason. By the way, since there is no way to count +/- I guess the rule "do not brake that is working or provide a way to do the same" should work. If there is a number of users of smth it should not be broken. csup/cvsup does not provide the same. rik BTW. I think the bikeshed should be painted blue. ___ 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
Christian Laursen wrote: On 12/04/11 01:25, Doug Barton wrote: [snip] Replying to a somewhat random mail in this thread. Has anyone considerede that the people actually using CVS for getting the source might be somewhat overrepresented on freebsd-current? Probably you are right. I guess I would never use CVS if I wouldn't be a software developer and was not able to fix smth by my self. But as a developer I like to see the tool I got accustomed out of the box as it was to for many years. Especially after I've started to help to friends working in companies with restricted Internet access or detached systems. I've started to hate most of linux distributions since they do not have almost any tool for digging and solving problems. But with FreeBSD I even can solve the problem from my seat just giving instructions by phone or skype. rik If I had to guess, the average user is using either freebsd-update or csup (or even cvsup) to update a freshly installed system. Those that need the added flexibility provided by using CVS directly should be fully able to install it using pkg_add. Personally I pkg_add screen on new systems before doing anything else. I have never considered that a problem. I use CVS myself from time to time, but I see no need for it to be in base for that reason. BTW. I think the bikeshed should be painted blue. ___ 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 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).
By random version I mean any exact version I need, not only head of
branch or tag.
rik
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"
___
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
Doug Barton wrote: 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? :) Don't you really think that one would protect smth that he/she not using? I hope no ;-) People (and me one of them) just try to protect smth they like in a system and they use. If you are ready to provide alternative the number of people against this change will decrease to smaller list that don't like change habits or use smth in much wider area. 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? No. Usually base system is updated in a first turn. I even do not install pkgs usually. 2. If so, why is installing one more unthinkable? Sorry, but the previous answer was opposite. But despite of that, I do not like additional packages. I've started to use jails more often not only from a security issue, but also cause of the problems with upgrade. The more packages you have in the system - the harder to upgrade them if the last upgrade was not done recently. But this is the other story. 3. Why is it a problem if the port/package you need to install in the early stages has dependencies? The amount of time you need to get and compile all the stuff. The first packages I usually install is the 'bash' and 'portupgrade'. I didn't ever count dependences for just two packages I need, but it is about 15-20 of them. I can do working system solving the most of needed task without both of them. And I do my job while they are installing (or better to say their dependences). If I need to fix some detached from the internet systems, I do not need to keep the set of packages for set of branches and for set of dependences just only sources, base system, my hands and my head. rik Thanks, 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
Max Khon wrote: Rik, On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Roman Kurakin 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
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
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
Max Khon 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. By the way, there is one other use case of cvs. Personally I use cvs instead of cvsup to checkout whatever version I need to compile. It is very useful to have such ability out of the box without any extra ports. 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: MAJOR number
Thanks! Best regards, Roman Kurakin M. Warner Losh wrote: In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Roman Kurakin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: : ??? ce Cronyx Tau-32 E1 adapter I've checked -stable and -current. You may have: 185 ce Cronyx Tau-32 E1 adapeter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for your adapter. Sorry for the hassles in getting it. I'll be checking in this shortly, but we're in a freeze right now so it may take a little while. Warner ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
MAJOR number
Hi, I need a new MAJOR number for our new device. How can I get it? I've read that FreeBSD doesn't use them any more. But we may need it to not interfere with other device drivers in previous releases of FreeBSD. ??? ce Cronyx Tau-32 E1 adapter ___ Best regars, Roman Kurakin Cronyx Engineering http://www.cronyx.ru ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Windows/DOS boot problem with DP2
Hi,
I am working at home with three OS. Windows 2000, Linux (ASPLinux)
and FreeBSD.
I use aspldr (some times lilo) as a boot loader. A week ago I installed
FreeBSD 5.0 DP2
and when I tried to boot W2K I saw that can't. I tried to reinstall W2K
but when I try
to boot I see the same problem. Next, I boot from DOS floppy and tried
to install DOS. After
reboot the problem didn't disappered, I can't boot even plain DOS.
Linux boots normaly. I tried aspldr and lilo and got the same results.
I am not sure about previous version of FreeBSD, probably it was 4.5R,
and all worked
fine.
What should I try to get back W2K?
PS. I am not in a list.
Best regards,
Roman Kurakin
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
