Re: Unable to use ports on 8.3 or earlier since r352986
I take it back this fails for qt4-rcc which fails to detect endian and other issues :( So far Lena's suggestion of an 8.4 make is working :) - Original Message - From: "Steven Hartland" For the record bmake doesn't work is fails to build qmake4 without even giving an error :( Where as copying make from 10 to the 8.3 box worked fine. - Original Message - From: To: Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2014 12:11 AM Subject: Re: Unable to use ports on 8.3 or earlier since r352986 > As a work-around it may be possible to install the devel/bmake port and > use it for port management. Yes this should work. Install devel/bmake, then use 'bmake' instead of 'make' when interacting with the ports tree. Or install devel/fmake and use 'fmake'. Either works. Or download 8.4 sources: rm -rf /usr/src svn export svn://svn0.us-east.FreeBSD.org/base/releng/8.4 /usr/src and upgrade the `make` binary only: cd /usr/src/usr.bin/make make make install Or (untested) copy the file /usr/bin/make from 8.4 CD or its image, an example for i386: fetch ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ISO-IMAGES-i386/8.4/FreeBSD-8.4-RELEASE-i386-livefs.iso mdconfig -f FreeBSD-8.4-RELEASE-i386-livefs.iso mount_cd9660 /dev/md0 /mnt cp -p /usr/bin/make /usr/bin/make.bak cp /mnt/usr/bin/make /usr/bin/make umount /mnt mdconfig -d -u 0 Or if i386 then you can use the binary from my 8.4: fetch http://lena.kiev.ua/make84.bin cp -p /usr/bin/make /usr/bin/make.bak cp make84.bin /usr/bin/make ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Unable to use ports on 8.3 or earlier since r352986
For the record bmake doesn't work is fails to build qmake4 without even giving an error :( Where as copying make from 10 to the 8.3 box worked fine. Regards steve - Original Message - From: To: Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2014 12:11 AM Subject: Re: Unable to use ports on 8.3 or earlier since r352986 > As a work-around it may be possible to install the devel/bmake port and > use it for port management. Yes this should work. Install devel/bmake, then use 'bmake' instead of 'make' when interacting with the ports tree. Or install devel/fmake and use 'fmake'. Either works. Or download 8.4 sources: rm -rf /usr/src svn export svn://svn0.us-east.FreeBSD.org/base/releng/8.4 /usr/src and upgrade the `make` binary only: cd /usr/src/usr.bin/make make make install Or (untested) copy the file /usr/bin/make from 8.4 CD or its image, an example for i386: fetch ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ISO-IMAGES-i386/8.4/FreeBSD-8.4-RELEASE-i386-livefs.iso mdconfig -f FreeBSD-8.4-RELEASE-i386-livefs.iso mount_cd9660 /dev/md0 /mnt cp -p /usr/bin/make /usr/bin/make.bak cp /mnt/usr/bin/make /usr/bin/make umount /mnt mdconfig -d -u 0 Or if i386 then you can use the binary from my 8.4: fetch http://lena.kiev.ua/make84.bin cp -p /usr/bin/make /usr/bin/make.bak cp make84.bin /usr/bin/make ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Unable to use ports on 8.3 or earlier since r352986
> > As a work-around it may be possible to install the devel/bmake port and > > use it for port management. > Yes this should work. Install devel/bmake, then use 'bmake' instead of > 'make' when interacting with the ports tree. Or install devel/fmake and > use 'fmake'. Either works. Or download 8.4 sources: rm -rf /usr/src svn export svn://svn0.us-east.FreeBSD.org/base/releng/8.4 /usr/src and upgrade the `make` binary only: cd /usr/src/usr.bin/make make make install Or (untested) copy the file /usr/bin/make from 8.4 CD or its image, an example for i386: fetch ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ISO-IMAGES-i386/8.4/FreeBSD-8.4-RELEASE-i386-livefs.iso mdconfig -f FreeBSD-8.4-RELEASE-i386-livefs.iso mount_cd9660 /dev/md0 /mnt cp -p /usr/bin/make /usr/bin/make.bak cp /mnt/usr/bin/make /usr/bin/make umount /mnt mdconfig -d -u 0 Or if i386 then you can use the binary from my 8.4: fetch http://lena.kiev.ua/make84.bin cp -p /usr/bin/make /usr/bin/make.bak cp make84.bin /usr/bin/make ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Unable to use ports on 8.3 or earlier since r352986
On 5/9/2014 7:24 AM, Gyrd Thane Lange wrote: > Den 09. mai 2014 14:01, skrev Steven Hartland: >> Since the following commit ports is now broken on 8.3 and earlier. >> http://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports?view=revision&revision=352986 >> >> Now while 8.3 is now officially EOL as of 9 days ago such a >> breakage so soon after the EOL seems very bad. >> >> Can we consider reverting this and only applying after a >> decent amount of time to give people the chance to update >> without preventing them from getting port security updates etc? > > As a work-around it may be possible to install the devel/bmake port and > use it for port management. (Disclaimer: have not tried it, but it > should be possible in theory.) > > Best regards, > Gyrd ^_^ > Yes this should work. Install devel/bmake, then use 'bmake' instead of 'make' when interacting with the ports tree. Or install devel/fmake and use 'fmake'. Either works. -- Regards, Bryan Drewery signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Unable to use ports on 8.3 or earlier since r352986
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 12:26:36AM +0100, Steven Hartland wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "John Marino" > > > > On 5/9/2014 22:22, Doug Ambrisko wrote: > >> On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 06:44:22PM +0200, John Marino wrote: > >> | I'll stress the previous point again. The change that broke this was > >> | desired 8 months ago. It was applied as soon as it was legal to do so. > >> > >> FYI, because some might be legal doesn't necessarily make it in the > >> best interest of users. > > > > It should be obvious that nobody breaks trees intentionally for fun. > > It's done in the overall best interest of users. > > That said based soley on the change log this compatibility removal did seem > to be done with no clear benefit appart from removing an old compat shims, > yes its nice to remove old hacks when they aren't needed any more, but > if they aren't causing any problems when leaving it for users to catch > up is a good thing to consider. > > Don't get me wrong, progress is definitely good, but if this was done just > to remove old hacks like the commit message indicated then it would be > nice for users if it was delayed until required so to speak. > A hack has been added to bmake in base just for the sake of being able to have the ports tree compatible with bmake and old make because all our versions of make were able to understand :tl and :tu but the version in 8.3 This hack to allow this is quite ugly and it was promissed to bmake maintainer to allow them to remove it as soon as possible aka after the EOL of 8.3 Now if you really want to continue with 8.3 just install devel/bmake from a ports tree check out from prior the commit your point at and then use it with newer checkouts regards, Bapt pgp0UK7CCYC8Y.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Unable to use ports on 8.3 or earlier since r352986
- Original Message - From: "John Marino" On 5/9/2014 22:22, Doug Ambrisko wrote: On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 06:44:22PM +0200, John Marino wrote: | I'll stress the previous point again. The change that broke this was | desired 8 months ago. It was applied as soon as it was legal to do so. FYI, because some might be legal doesn't necessarily make it in the best interest of users. It should be obvious that nobody breaks trees intentionally for fun. It's done in the overall best interest of users. That said based soley on the change log this compatibility removal did seem to be done with no clear benefit appart from removing an old compat shims, yes its nice to remove old hacks when they aren't needed any more, but if they aren't causing any problems when leaving it for users to catch up is a good thing to consider. Don't get me wrong, progress is definitely good, but if this was done just to remove old hacks like the commit message indicated then it would be nice for users if it was delayed until required so to speak. | Anyone who knowingly chose not migrate off before the EOL pretty much is | getting a lesson about why that was an unwise decision. That lesson is | not specific to FreeBSD. There are company's that use FreeBSD as a basis of their product and can't move quickly and when they move tend to move in big steps. Doing a QA of a complete OS is expensive and will turn up unknown new problems and yes fix some as well. However, when you have a large installed base that is a big risk. So rather then track an 8 -stable release it makes more sense to focus to co-ordinate a move to 9 release and 10 release. Once we pick a X.Y release we stick to it and back changes until we go to a X+1 release. Depending on SW requirements a newer port might be required. Also some company's depend on 3rd party binary SDK's. We have binaries running on "unsupported" OS versions but with newer OS kernels. If these companies are going to ignore EOL at their own risk, then they can simply freeze the ports tree and then cherry pick and modify as needed. The release is unsupported. The timeline is published years in advance, so there is no one to blame. If a company's lifeblood is based on unsupported releases, I hope they have post-EOL plans. Users will achnowledge that, and can make their own plans as mentioned, however its not usually expected for the ports tree to become instantly unusable after release EOL. The company that I work for is not currently impacted by this but we might if we have to grab a newer port for an older release of FreeBSD. | > Users may well be quite happy to port the small number of OS security fixes | > until they have completed their upgrades, I know thats something we plan to | > do here. Ports on the other hand is a different matter, as the number of | > fixes / changes is much higher so makes it impractical. | | They were supposed to have completed their upgrades prior to the EOL. It that along the lines of saying that FreeBSD will stop running 4.x binaries since FreeBSD 4 is not longer supported? That is a value I find good with FreeBSD that it is some what easy to do ... to make it work well I have some rtld patches that deal with ports library conflicts of name/version. No, it's along the lines of saying don't update the ports tree after the release is EOL'd. That's not exactly practical now is it. Some issues are to be expected but in general the ports tree has been eminently useable way after EOL for previous releases, so without any indication otherwise its going to come as a shock to users. There is always the option of moving to pkgsrc - although doing so is more disruptive than simply upgrading to release 8.4. Moving to 8.4 is likely a waste of time for most, I know we're moving directly to 10 but with the number of changes that require retooling its taking us longer than expected. Don't forget its only been out 5 months, which isn't very long in the grand scheme of things. | > One example that springs to mind is the release version of pfsense is still | > 8.3 so being to still compile updated ports with fixes for that is very | > useful. | | I don't know anything about pfsense, or why it needs to compile ports, | but I think you should asked them why they haven't had a release prior | to 8.3 EOL. That's probably an excellent question. Maybe they are spending their limited resources on a 10.1 release? The point people are raising is that this is breaking things for them with no easy migration plan except an OS redo of which they might not have time to qualify to deploy. So then they thing is it time to switch to a different OS? They didn't get caught with their pants down. Anyone in a bad spot is here as a result of poor planning and switching the OS isn't going to solve that problem. And the length of time FreeBSD provides release support as competitive with just about gratis OS, is it not? But the point still remains that
Re: Unable to use ports on 8.3 or earlier since r352986
On 5/9/2014 22:22, Doug Ambrisko wrote: > On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 06:44:22PM +0200, John Marino wrote: > | I'll stress the previous point again. The change that broke this was > | desired 8 months ago. It was applied as soon as it was legal to do so. > > FYI, because some might be legal doesn't necessarily make it in the > best interest of users. It should be obvious that nobody breaks trees intentionally for fun. It's done in the overall best interest of users. > | Anyone who knowingly chose not migrate off before the EOL pretty much is > | getting a lesson about why that was an unwise decision. That lesson is > | not specific to FreeBSD. > > There are company's that use FreeBSD as a basis of their product and can't > move quickly and when they move tend to move in big steps. Doing a QA > of a complete OS is expensive and will turn up unknown new problems and > yes fix some as well. However, when you have a large installed base > that is a big risk. So rather then track an 8 -stable release it makes > more sense to focus to co-ordinate a move to 9 release and 10 release. > Once we pick a X.Y release we stick to it and back changes until we > go to a X+1 release. Depending on SW requirements a newer port might > be required. Also some company's depend on 3rd party binary SDK's. We > have binaries running on "unsupported" OS versions but with newer OS kernels. If these companies are going to ignore EOL at their own risk, then they can simply freeze the ports tree and then cherry pick and modify as needed. The release is unsupported. The timeline is published years in advance, so there is no one to blame. If a company's lifeblood is based on unsupported releases, I hope they have post-EOL plans. > The company that I work for is not currently impacted by this but we > might if we have to grab a newer port for an older release of FreeBSD. > > | > Users may well be quite happy to port the small number of OS security > fixes > | > until they have completed their upgrades, I know thats something we plan > to > | > do here. Ports on the other hand is a different matter, as the number of > | > fixes / changes is much higher so makes it impractical. > | > | They were supposed to have completed their upgrades prior to the EOL. > > It that along the lines of saying that FreeBSD will stop running 4.x > binaries since FreeBSD 4 is not longer supported? That is a value I > find good with FreeBSD that it is some what easy to do ... to make it > work well I have some rtld patches that deal with ports library conflicts > of name/version. No, it's along the lines of saying don't update the ports tree after the release is EOL'd. There is always the option of moving to pkgsrc - although doing so is more disruptive than simply upgrading to release 8.4. > | > One example that springs to mind is the release version of pfsense is > still > | > 8.3 so being to still compile updated ports with fixes for that is very > | > useful. > | > | I don't know anything about pfsense, or why it needs to compile ports, > | but I think you should asked them why they haven't had a release prior > | to 8.3 EOL. That's probably an excellent question. > > Maybe they are spending their limited resources on a 10.1 release? > > The point people are raising is that this is breaking things for them > with no easy migration plan except an OS redo of which they might not > have time to qualify to deploy. So then they thing is it time to switch > to a different OS? They didn't get caught with their pants down. Anyone in a bad spot is here as a result of poor planning and switching the OS isn't going to solve that problem. And the length of time FreeBSD provides release support as competitive with just about gratis OS, is it not? John ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Unable to use ports on 8.3 or earlier since r352986
On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 06:44:22PM +0200, John Marino wrote: | On 5/9/2014 18:33, Steven Hartland wrote: | > - Original Message - From: "Big Lebowski" | > | > | >> Well, the EoL was announced in January, and it is what its name is: | >> end of | >> life. There have been changes waiting to happen just for the 8.3 to go | >> away, so when the day was reached, they've been applied. This doesnt seem | >> very bad, but instead, just about time, since there was no reason to hold | >> them off any longer. | > | > In an ideal world everyone would have migrated off, but its not an ideal | > world so being friendly to our users and not breaking everything in ports | > at the first available opportunity would be nice. | | I'll stress the previous point again. The change that broke this was | desired 8 months ago. It was applied as soon as it was legal to do so. FYI, because some might be legal doesn't necessarily make it in the best interest of users. | Anyone who knowingly chose not migrate off before the EOL pretty much is | getting a lesson about why that was an unwise decision. That lesson is | not specific to FreeBSD. There are company's that use FreeBSD as a basis of their product and can't move quickly and when they move tend to move in big steps. Doing a QA of a complete OS is expensive and will turn up unknown new problems and yes fix some as well. However, when you have a large installed base that is a big risk. So rather then track an 8 -stable release it makes more sense to focus to co-ordinate a move to 9 release and 10 release. Once we pick a X.Y release we stick to it and back changes until we go to a X+1 release. Depending on SW requirements a newer port might be required. Also some company's depend on 3rd party binary SDK's. We have binaries running on "unsupported" OS versions but with newer OS kernels. The company that I work for is not currently impacted by this but we might if we have to grab a newer port for an older release of FreeBSD. | > Users may well be quite happy to port the small number of OS security fixes | > until they have completed their upgrades, I know thats something we plan to | > do here. Ports on the other hand is a different matter, as the number of | > fixes / changes is much higher so makes it impractical. | | They were supposed to have completed their upgrades prior to the EOL. It that along the lines of saying that FreeBSD will stop running 4.x binaries since FreeBSD 4 is not longer supported? That is a value I find good with FreeBSD that it is some what easy to do ... to make it work well I have some rtld patches that deal with ports library conflicts of name/version. | >> From what I've read there doesn't seem to be a must have reason for this | > change, if this is indeed the case is there any reason not to consider | > users? | > | > One example that springs to mind is the release version of pfsense is still | > 8.3 so being to still compile updated ports with fixes for that is very | > useful. | | I don't know anything about pfsense, or why it needs to compile ports, | but I think you should asked them why they haven't had a release prior | to 8.3 EOL. That's probably an excellent question. Maybe they are spending their limited resources on a 10.1 release? The point people are raising is that this is breaking things for them with no easy migration plan except an OS redo of which they might not have time to qualify to deploy. So then they thing is it time to switch to a different OS? Thanks, Doug A. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Unable to use ports on 8.3 or earlier since r352986
On 5/9/2014 18:33, Steven Hartland wrote: > - Original Message - From: "Big Lebowski" > > >> Well, the EoL was announced in January, and it is what its name is: >> end of >> life. There have been changes waiting to happen just for the 8.3 to go >> away, so when the day was reached, they've been applied. This doesnt seem >> very bad, but instead, just about time, since there was no reason to hold >> them off any longer. > > In an ideal world everyone would have migrated off, but its not an ideal > world so being friendly to our users and not breaking everything in ports > at the first available opportunity would be nice. I'll stress the previous point again. The change that broke this was desired 8 months ago. It was applied as soon as it was legal to do so. Anyone who knowingly chose not migrate off before the EOL pretty much is getting a lesson about why that was an unwise decision. That lesson is not specific to FreeBSD. > Users may well be quite happy to port the small number of OS security fixes > until they have completed their upgrades, I know thats something we plan to > do here. Ports on the other hand is a different matter, as the number of > fixes / changes is much higher so makes it impractical. They were supposed to have completed their upgrades prior to the EOL. >> From what I've read there doesn't seem to be a must have reason for this > change, if this is indeed the case is there any reason not to consider > users? > > One example that springs to mind is the release version of pfsense is still > 8.3 so being to still compile updated ports with fixes for that is very > useful. I don't know anything about pfsense, or why it needs to compile ports, but I think you should asked them why they haven't had a release prior to 8.3 EOL. That's probably an excellent question. John ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Unable to use ports on 8.3 or earlier since r352986
- Original Message - From: "Big Lebowski" Well, the EoL was announced in January, and it is what its name is: end of life. There have been changes waiting to happen just for the 8.3 to go away, so when the day was reached, they've been applied. This doesnt seem very bad, but instead, just about time, since there was no reason to hold them off any longer. In an ideal world everyone would have migrated off, but its not an ideal world so being friendly to our users and not breaking everything in ports at the first available opportunity would be nice. Users may well be quite happy to port the small number of OS security fixes until they have completed their upgrades, I know thats something we plan to do here. Ports on the other hand is a different matter, as the number of fixes / changes is much higher so makes it impractical. From what I've read there doesn't seem to be a must have reason for this change, if this is indeed the case is there any reason not to consider users? One example that springs to mind is the release version of pfsense is still 8.3 so being to still compile updated ports with fixes for that is very useful. Regards Steve ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Unable to use ports on 8.3 or earlier since r352986
Well, the EoL was announced in January, and it is what its name is: end of life. There have been changes waiting to happen just for the 8.3 to go away, so when the day was reached, they've been applied. This doesnt seem very bad, but instead, just about time, since there was no reason to hold them off any longer. Regards, BL On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Steven Hartland wrote: > Since the following commit ports is now broken on 8.3 and earlier. > http://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports?view=revision&revision=352986 > > Now while 8.3 is now officially EOL as of 9 days ago such a > breakage so soon after the EOL seems very bad. > > Can we consider reverting this and only applying after a > decent amount of time to give people the chance to update > without preventing them from getting port security updates etc? > >Regards >Steve > ___ > freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" > ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Unable to use ports on 8.3 or earlier since r352986
Den 09. mai 2014 14:01, skrev Steven Hartland: Since the following commit ports is now broken on 8.3 and earlier. http://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports?view=revision&revision=352986 Now while 8.3 is now officially EOL as of 9 days ago such a breakage so soon after the EOL seems very bad. Can we consider reverting this and only applying after a decent amount of time to give people the chance to update without preventing them from getting port security updates etc? As a work-around it may be possible to install the devel/bmake port and use it for port management. (Disclaimer: have not tried it, but it should be possible in theory.) Best regards, Gyrd ^_^ Regards Steve ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Unable to use ports on 8.3 or earlier since r352986
Since the following commit ports is now broken on 8.3 and earlier. http://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports?view=revision&revision=352986 Now while 8.3 is now officially EOL as of 9 days ago such a breakage so soon after the EOL seems very bad. Can we consider reverting this and only applying after a decent amount of time to give people the chance to update without preventing them from getting port security updates etc? Regards Steve ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
