Re: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD ?
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 2:23 PM, O. Hartmann ohart...@zedat.fu-berlin.de wrote: A complete No-Go is the lack of CUDA and more important OpenCL capabilities and therefore GPGPU usage. As nVidia made clear in San Jose, CUDA, and therefore GPGPU, is a tremendous fast growing market. On all of our number crunchers we use now Linux - for exactly this GPGPU reason. And once seddled, I guess it is hard to convince people to move towards another OS. This is really becoming a problem, and it's getting worse over time. I've had to set aside a couple of dedicated Linux boxes to do OpenCL number crunching with nVidia GPUs, because there simply was no way to do that in FreeBSD at the moment. As far as I'm concerned, FreeBSD and HPC don't match well right now, and it is a crying shame. Save for this, everything else here still runs FreeBSD just fine. -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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD ?
As I keep pointing out - if people want to make FreeBSD work on HPC, please work on making it work. Either wade through the depths yourself, or find a friendly developer who would like to wade through the depths for you. People are working on their areas of interest (paid, free, otherwise) or non-interest (paid - free would be a bit scary.) I highly doubt the FreeBSD developers would say no to someone popping up and taking ownership of HPC on FreeBSD, then following it up by making it work. 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD ?
On 10 June 2012 11:12, Martin Sugioarto mar...@sugioarto.com wrote: Am Sat, 09 Jun 2012 21:09:09 +0700 schrieb Adam Strohl adams-free...@ateamsystems.com: I get the feeling people are updating their ports tree and then recompiling/reinstalling everything just because and then are complaining when one thing breaks (its the only thing I can think of). Hi. But it does not need to break. Sometimes it would be enough just to test if the port compiles before committing it (I'm talking about libreoffice here which is broken). Some people rely on some essential ports. I can understand that porters are not Gods and make errors, but they should be fixed within hours, when they have been found on important ports. I mean, ports collection is sure great and this is one of the aspects why I am using FreeBSD, but at the moment FreeBSD is losing strength here, in my opinion. Er... people always test their commits. Sometimes edge cases will creep in, such as the libreoffice failure which was due to different configurations, but to suggest that the commit wasn't tested is quite frankly insulting-- it built on a clean system perfectly well. Chris ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD ?
On 06/10/12 12:37, Chris Rees wrote: On 10 June 2012 11:12, Martin Sugioarto mar...@sugioarto.com wrote: Am Sat, 09 Jun 2012 21:09:09 +0700 schrieb Adam Strohl adams-free...@ateamsystems.com: I get the feeling people are updating their ports tree and then recompiling/reinstalling everything just because and then are complaining when one thing breaks (its the only thing I can think of). Hi. But it does not need to break. Sometimes it would be enough just to test if the port compiles before committing it (I'm talking about libreoffice here which is broken). Some people rely on some essential ports. I can understand that porters are not Gods and make errors, but they should be fixed within hours, when they have been found on important ports. I mean, ports collection is sure great and this is one of the aspects why I am using FreeBSD, but at the moment FreeBSD is losing strength here, in my opinion. Er... people always test their commits. Sometimes edge cases will creep in, such as the libreoffice failure which was due to different configurations, but to suggest that the commit wasn't tested is quite frankly insulting-- it built on a clean system perfectly well. Chris In do not see any insulting statement! Why those exaggerations? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD ?
On 06/10/12 12:37, Chris Rees wrote: On 10 June 2012 11:12, Martin Sugioarto mar...@sugioarto.com wrote: Am Sat, 09 Jun 2012 21:09:09 +0700 schrieb Adam Strohl adams-free...@ateamsystems.com: I get the feeling people are updating their ports tree and then recompiling/reinstalling everything just because and then are complaining when one thing breaks (its the only thing I can think of). Hi. But it does not need to break. Sometimes it would be enough just to test if the port compiles before committing it (I'm talking about libreoffice here which is broken). Some people rely on some essential ports. I can understand that porters are not Gods and make errors, but they should be fixed within hours, when they have been found on important ports. I mean, ports collection is sure great and this is one of the aspects why I am using FreeBSD, but at the moment FreeBSD is losing strength here, in my opinion. Er... people always test their commits. Sometimes edge cases will Really always? This is a statement you can only speak for yourself and in any other case, it is good-will thinking about what others should do! creep in, such as the libreoffice failure which was due to different configurations, but to suggest that the commit wasn't tested is quite frankly insulting-- it built on a clean system perfectly well. Chris signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD ?
On 10 June 2012 11:51, O. Hartmann ohart...@zedat.fu-berlin.de wrote: On 06/10/12 12:37, Chris Rees wrote: On 10 June 2012 11:12, Martin Sugioarto mar...@sugioarto.com wrote: Am Sat, 09 Jun 2012 21:09:09 +0700 schrieb Adam Strohl adams-free...@ateamsystems.com: I get the feeling people are updating their ports tree and then recompiling/reinstalling everything just because and then are complaining when one thing breaks (its the only thing I can think of). Hi. But it does not need to break. Sometimes it would be enough just to test if the port compiles before committing it (I'm talking about libreoffice here which is broken). Some people rely on some essential ports. I can understand that porters are not Gods and make errors, but they should be fixed within hours, when they have been found on important ports. I mean, ports collection is sure great and this is one of the aspects why I am using FreeBSD, but at the moment FreeBSD is losing strength here, in my opinion. Er... people always test their commits. Sometimes edge cases will creep in, such as the libreoffice failure which was due to different configurations, but to suggest that the commit wasn't tested is quite frankly insulting-- it built on a clean system perfectly well. Chris In do not see any insulting statement! Why those exaggerations? Sometimes it would be enough just to test if the port compiles before committing it (I'm talking about libreoffice here which is broken) ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD ?
Sometimes it would be enough just to test if the port compiles before committing it (I'm talking about libreoffice here which is broken) Yeah right... Like updating libreoffice without testing would be actually possible at all... Are you familiar with http://redports.org/ ? Just a example what is used for WIP. -- View this message in context: http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/Re-Why-Are-You-NOT-Using-FreeBSD-tp5714183p5717150.html Sent from the freebsd-current mailing list archive at Nabble.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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD ?
On 06/10/12 13:16, Jakub Lach wrote: Sometimes it would be enough just to test if the port compiles before committing it (I'm talking about libreoffice here which is broken) Yeah right... Like updating libreoffice without testing would be actually possible at all... Are you familiar with http://redports.org/ ? Just a example what is used for WIP. -- View this message in context: http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/Re-Why-Are-You-NOT-Using-FreeBSD-tp5714183p5717150.html Sent from the freebsd-current mailing list archive at Nabble.com. Well, this thread has been run out of the subject and is now being hijacked by port's problems ;-) One point to add for the NOT using is definitely the mess in the ports (sometimes). I have the feeling that, for my now almost 16 years experience and usage of FreeBSD, many statements PRO FreeBSD and the ports are repeated from times, when FreeBSD's port system was superior over many other approaches. Time changes, others keep pace. Just to comment on that. FreeBSD is supposed to have its strength in server environment. But I see lack of those strength when it comes to user management, specifically OpenLDAP. For users it is not very convenient changing their password via a cryptic ldappasswd statement. On most Linux boxes I have access to, (Suse, Ubuntu), one can simply use the system's passwd command - everything else is then done via PAM. I had in 2007 and 2008 some issues with that and simply by that fact, FreeBSD was banned from the desktop side and after it has been banned by the company I worked for from their desktops, they didn't see reasons why they should put more effords into administering server based on FreeBSD AND desktops based on Linux. The decission then was made to use Linux Ubuntu server and desktop. One more pebble erodet to dust ... That was an example of a data mining business company. Years ago the physics department at my former university had their networking infrastructure based on FreeBSD - that was in the time of FreeBSD 4. Strong network stack, stable, easy to manage. With Linux kernel 2.6 most of the PROs for FreeBSD where obsoleted, and as shown here, FreeBSD does have some disadavntages in throughput compared to Linux. After those benchmarks have been publsihed things may changed, but the negative information against FreeBSD is sticky. Or, in the opposite way, remnant informations of the past PRO FreeBSD are sticky (a good luck then for FreeBSD). Talking about NOT using FreeBSD, for me there is a bunch of reasons to change and these reasons have a gravity to my profession and work. FreeBSD unluckily lacks in optimized mathematical libraries and compilers. While I'm happy to live with LLVM/CLANG and GCC 4.6 or GCC 4.7 and it's Fortran derivatives (I don't use Fortran, but need to compile some model software written in F95), others don't. A complete No-Go is the lack of CUDA and more important OpenCL capabilities and therefore GPGPU usage. As nVidia made clear in San Jose, CUDA, and therefore GPGPU, is a tremendous fast growing market. On all of our number crunchers we use now Linux - for exactly this GPGPU reason. And once seddled, I guess it is hard to convince people to move towards another OS. I have no clue how to change this. It is a political issue beyond my capabilities. I'd like to see more advertising FreeBSD or any *BSD in the scientific development, but it seems everything is stuck to Linux - because it is the better and faster OS (also something that is often brought up without evidence, but it is stick in the heads). Who ever has ordered hardware from Dell and tried to manage their JAVA based blade accessing modules via native FreeBSD applications, knows that it is a pain in the ass. For just checking the HPC servers from time to time I need to use Windows or Linux (most run in a VBox with a crappy screen). If the advantages of your favorite OS does not give you a tremendous massage of your feelings, I guess those issues will make you turn towards what is more convenient much faster. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
WAS: Re: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD ? New: port annoyance LibreOffice
On 06/10/12 17:43, John Merryweather Cooper wrote: On 06/10/12 09:54, Martin Sugioarto wrote: Am Sun, 10 Jun 2012 11:37:09 +0100 schrieb Chris Reescr...@freebsd.org: Er... people always test their commits. Sometimes edge cases will creep in, such as the libreoffice failure which was due to different configurations, but to suggest that the commit wasn't tested is quite frankly insulting-- it built on a clean system perfectly well. Hi, I don't mean to insult anyone. As I have already told, I am really thankful that people invest their precious time into updating the ports collection. Whatever clean system means. It is surely not the default case that someone has got a freshly installed set of ports. Among all the default problems with ports, libreoffice[1] adds to the group of annoyances[2] at the moment. I don't know when I have seen portmaster -ad run through successfully last time. I need more and more -x options to exclude ports which fail to build. [1] german/libreoffice and libreoffice fails all the time in (LOCALIZED_LANG is set to de): Module 'lingucomponent' delivered successfully. 12 files copied, 2 files unchanged --- Oh dear - something failed during the build - sorry ! For more help with debugging build errors, please see the section in: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development internal build errors: ERROR: error 65280 occurred while making /usr/workdir-ports/usr/ports/editors/libreoffice/work/libreoffice-core-3.5.2.2/vcl/prj it seems that the error is inside 'vcl', please re-run build inside this module to isolate the error and/or test your fix: --- Whatever this tries to tell me. I don't get it. This is a completely useless error message for me. Not even in german/libreoffice. i try to build the standard version and I receive the same error. I can fix this by doing what the buildsystem suggests, but then I have a stop in sfx2 and others and it ends up in some module called tail_, where the build never ends when performing the repair as suggested. I had once a box running all the night looping building in this folder. [2] The default annoyances are for example: - After updating perl, php or whatever, it makes sense to enforce updating the modules that belong to these ports. I've seen 100x the same message that p5-XML-Parser does not work and know what it means, but this should be resolved by the port system. I mean, when you update perl, the perl modules won't work anymore. This is totally clear and it makes sense to update them first before going on. I can confirm that. I fixed that for me by portmaster p5- in case p5-SAX-XXX failed. - When specifying WITHOUT_X11 the ports should respect this and not try to pull in the X11 variants of ports. I regularly see some ports pulling ImageMagick instead of the already installed ImageMagick-nox11. I still do not fully understand what is going on with WITHOUT_GNOME, but I'll try to figure it out later. But I am quite sure that some ports pull in unneeded Gnome dependencies. - Ports are being marked as interactive and stop the update process. The idea behind portmaster was (earlier) to avoid interactive building of ports and ask all the needed questions, before the builds start. I mean, earlier, I could get out and enjoy some coffee outdoors, now I have to sit at the keyboard. This is unacceptable! ;) portmaster does even more damage. Sometimed a port reels in some newly updates, a port gets deleted. if on of the to be updated prerquisits fail, the port in question isn't there anymore. portmaster fails quite often in oberwriting remnant files. If a port gets corrupted by accident, like graphics/netpbm, One need to delete all binaries manually from /usr/local/bin, otherwise the installation fails. Somehow I wish to have a brute force knob to overwrite everything in a brutal way. - It would be nice to have a mechanism that tells you that your perl, mysql or whatever is not the default version anymore and you should consider updating to the default (and recommended) port. Martin From /etc/defaults/periodic.conf: # 400.status-pkg weekly_status_pkg_enable=YES# Find out-of-date pkgs pkg_version=pkg_version # Use this program pkg_version_index=/usr/ports/INDEX-9 # Use this index file There's an override script in ports-mgmt/portupgrade that uses it's database, also. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: WAS: Re: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD ? New: port annoyance LibreOffice
On 10 June 2012 18:10, O. Hartmann ohart...@zedat.fu-berlin.de wrote: On 06/10/12 17:43, John Merryweather Cooper wrote: On 06/10/12 09:54, Martin Sugioarto wrote: Am Sun, 10 Jun 2012 11:37:09 +0100 schrieb Chris Reescr...@freebsd.org: Er... people always test their commits. Sometimes edge cases will creep in, such as the libreoffice failure which was due to different configurations, but to suggest that the commit wasn't tested is quite frankly insulting-- it built on a clean system perfectly well. Hi, I don't mean to insult anyone. As I have already told, I am really thankful that people invest their precious time into updating the ports collection. Whatever clean system means. It is surely not the default case that someone has got a freshly installed set of ports. Among all the default problems with ports, libreoffice[1] adds to the group of annoyances[2] at the moment. I don't know when I have seen portmaster -ad run through successfully last time. I need more and more -x options to exclude ports which fail to build. [1] german/libreoffice and libreoffice fails all the time in (LOCALIZED_LANG is set to de): Module 'lingucomponent' delivered successfully. 12 files copied, 2 files unchanged --- Oh dear - something failed during the build - sorry ! For more help with debugging build errors, please see the section in: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development internal build errors: ERROR: error 65280 occurred while making /usr/workdir-ports/usr/ports/editors/libreoffice/work/libreoffice-core-3.5.2.2/vcl/prj it seems that the error is inside 'vcl', please re-run build inside this module to isolate the error and/or test your fix: --- Whatever this tries to tell me. I don't get it. This is a completely useless error message for me. Not even in german/libreoffice. i try to build the standard version and I receive the same error. I can fix this by doing what the buildsystem suggests, but then I have a stop in sfx2 and others and it ends up in some module called tail_, where the build never ends when performing the repair as suggested. I had once a box running all the night looping building in this folder. [2] The default annoyances are for example: - After updating perl, php or whatever, it makes sense to enforce updating the modules that belong to these ports. I've seen 100x the same message that p5-XML-Parser does not work and know what it means, but this should be resolved by the port system. I mean, when you update perl, the perl modules won't work anymore. This is totally clear and it makes sense to update them first before going on. I can confirm that. I fixed that for me by portmaster p5- in case p5-SAX-XXX failed. There's an UPDATING message written for that very purpose. - When specifying WITHOUT_X11 the ports should respect this and not try to pull in the X11 variants of ports. I regularly see some ports pulling ImageMagick instead of the already installed ImageMagick-nox11. I still do not fully understand what is going on with WITHOUT_GNOME, but I'll try to figure it out later. But I am quite sure that some ports pull in unneeded Gnome dependencies. - Ports are being marked as interactive and stop the update process. The idea behind portmaster was (earlier) to avoid interactive building of ports and ask all the needed questions, before the builds start. I mean, earlier, I could get out and enjoy some coffee outdoors, now I have to sit at the keyboard. This is unacceptable! ;) portmaster does even more damage. Sometimed a port reels in some newly updates, a port gets deleted. if on of the to be updated prerquisits fail, the port in question isn't there anymore. portmaster fails quite often in oberwriting remnant files. If a port gets corrupted by accident, like graphics/netpbm, One need to delete all binaries manually from /usr/local/bin, otherwise the installation fails. Somehow I wish to have a brute force knob to overwrite everything in a brutal way. FORCE_PKG_REGISTER. - It would be nice to have a mechanism that tells you that your perl, mysql or whatever is not the default version anymore and you should consider updating to the default (and recommended) port. Martin From /etc/defaults/periodic.conf: # 400.status-pkg weekly_status_pkg_enable=YES # Find out-of-date pkgs pkg_version=pkg_version # Use this program pkg_version_index=/usr/ports/INDEX-9 # Use this index file There's an override script in ports-mgmt/portupgrade that uses it's database, also. ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send
Re: WAS: Re: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD ? New: port annoyance LibreOffice
On 06/10/12 19:20, Chris Rees wrote: On 10 June 2012 18:10, O. Hartmann ohart...@zedat.fu-berlin.de wrote: On 06/10/12 17:43, John Merryweather Cooper wrote: On 06/10/12 09:54, Martin Sugioarto wrote: Am Sun, 10 Jun 2012 11:37:09 +0100 schrieb Chris Reescr...@freebsd.org: Er... people always test their commits. Sometimes edge cases will creep in, such as the libreoffice failure which was due to different configurations, but to suggest that the commit wasn't tested is quite frankly insulting-- it built on a clean system perfectly well. Hi, I don't mean to insult anyone. As I have already told, I am really thankful that people invest their precious time into updating the ports collection. Whatever clean system means. It is surely not the default case that someone has got a freshly installed set of ports. Among all the default problems with ports, libreoffice[1] adds to the group of annoyances[2] at the moment. I don't know when I have seen portmaster -ad run through successfully last time. I need more and more -x options to exclude ports which fail to build. [1] german/libreoffice and libreoffice fails all the time in (LOCALIZED_LANG is set to de): Module 'lingucomponent' delivered successfully. 12 files copied, 2 files unchanged --- Oh dear - something failed during the build - sorry ! For more help with debugging build errors, please see the section in: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development internal build errors: ERROR: error 65280 occurred while making /usr/workdir-ports/usr/ports/editors/libreoffice/work/libreoffice-core-3.5.2.2/vcl/prj it seems that the error is inside 'vcl', please re-run build inside this module to isolate the error and/or test your fix: --- Whatever this tries to tell me. I don't get it. This is a completely useless error message for me. Not even in german/libreoffice. i try to build the standard version and I receive the same error. I can fix this by doing what the buildsystem suggests, but then I have a stop in sfx2 and others and it ends up in some module called tail_, where the build never ends when performing the repair as suggested. I had once a box running all the night looping building in this folder. [2] The default annoyances are for example: - After updating perl, php or whatever, it makes sense to enforce updating the modules that belong to these ports. I've seen 100x the same message that p5-XML-Parser does not work and know what it means, but this should be resolved by the port system. I mean, when you update perl, the perl modules won't work anymore. This is totally clear and it makes sense to update them first before going on. I can confirm that. I fixed that for me by portmaster p5- in case p5-SAX-XXX failed. There's an UPDATING message written for that very purpose. And even WITH this message written in /usr/ports/UPDATING and follwoing those instrauctions, I have had the very same problem as for years now with this port. The problem is, if you'd like to do an automated or unattended update of the ports, you stumble very quickly in such a kind of show stopper. If you do not update on a regular basis, those problems develop in very serious problems. By the way, the reason why I update also the ports on a regular basis IS because of 100% sure problems if I wait for weeks or months. - When specifying WITHOUT_X11 the ports should respect this and not try to pull in the X11 variants of ports. I regularly see some ports pulling ImageMagick instead of the already installed ImageMagick-nox11. I still do not fully understand what is going on with WITHOUT_GNOME, but I'll try to figure it out later. But I am quite sure that some ports pull in unneeded Gnome dependencies. - Ports are being marked as interactive and stop the update process. The idea behind portmaster was (earlier) to avoid interactive building of ports and ask all the needed questions, before the builds start. I mean, earlier, I could get out and enjoy some coffee outdoors, now I have to sit at the keyboard. This is unacceptable! ;) portmaster does even more damage. Sometimed a port reels in some newly updates, a port gets deleted. if on of the to be updated prerquisits fail, the port in question isn't there anymore. portmaster fails quite often in oberwriting remnant files. If a port gets corrupted by accident, like graphics/netpbm, One need to delete all binaries manually from /usr/local/bin, otherwise the installation fails. Somehow I wish to have a brute force knob to overwrite everything in a brutal way. FORCE_PKG_REGISTER. Enabled by default in /etc/make.conf in my configuration. And the problem still persists ... signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
WAS: Re: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD ? New: port annoyance LibreOffice
O. Hartmann writes: Among all the default problems with ports, libreoffice[1] adds to the group of annoyances[2] at the moment. I don't know when I have seen portmaster -ad run through successfully last time. I need more and more -x options to exclude ports which fail to build. [1] german/libreoffice and libreoffice fails all the time in (LOCALIZED_LANG is set to de): There is a known problem with libreoffice and boost, specifically a conflict between the boost port and the internal version. There is a work-around; however, at the moment the libreoffice maintainer does not have the time to rectify matters. See the recent/ongoing thread in either ports@ or office@ for more information. Robert Huff ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD ?
On 06/09/12 06:45, Adam Strohl wrote: On 6/9/2012 3:34, Steve Franks wrote: Every time libjpeg or perl or python bumps the rev, I have to explain to my boss that I won't be using my computer for 48 hours. Lucky man! We are off from some desktop services (like LibreOffice and Firefox) for more than a week now! signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD ?
On 6/9/2012 14:50, O. Hartmann wrote: Lucky man! We are off from some desktop services (like LibreOffice and Firefox) for more than a week now! Why did you update to begin with? Bug/security fix? -- Adam Strohl http://www.ateamsystems.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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD ?
On 06/09/12 15:43, Adam Strohl wrote: On 6/9/2012 14:50, O. Hartmann wrote: Lucky man! We are off from some desktop services (like LibreOffice and Firefox) for more than a week now! Why did you update to begin with? Bug/security fix? -- Adam Strohl http://www.ateamsystems.com/ Well, this is a good question. Unfortunately, I did an update of the ports tree and PNG update rushed in. The information in UPDATING came a in bit later, but since then several ports have been updated already - and rendered some applications unuseable. The question why isn't applicable here. Sometimes ports need updates or a port that is installed reels in another or even an update and this triggers the avalnche of messes. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD ?
I just have successfully (*) build LibreOffice by just typing # make build in editors/libreoffice... * Without any manually removed hiccups. Dependencies build with clang fine too, as graphics/vigra is updated. -- View this message in context: http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/Re-Why-Are-You-NOT-Using-FreeBSD-tp5714183p5716905.html Sent from the freebsd-current mailing list archive at Nabble.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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD ?
On 06/09/12 18:03, Jakub Lach wrote: I just have successfully (*) build LibreOffice by just typing # make build in editors/libreoffice... * Without any manually removed hiccups. Dependencies build with clang fine too, as graphics/vigra is updated. -- Did you made the built in a jail, a freshly installed system or on a live system, grown and updated over time? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD ?
The same one I had problems earlier. I heard that you shouldn't have boost* ports installed prior, but when I had problems I didn't. -- View this message in context: http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/Re-Why-Are-You-NOT-Using-FreeBSD-tp5714183p5716943.html Sent from the freebsd-current mailing list archive at Nabble.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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
On 07.06.12 02:09, Erich wrote: Those minor issues are, having the recent mess in front of my eyes, a simple negative exaggeration. What is that price worth, if the system is faulting and rendered useless or partially useless? just do what was recommended in this thread: wait. Tell this ones to a commercial client. They will use words on you for which use you get a life ban on this list. If you are not qualified enough to handle issues like this, you would be better to avoid offering your integration services to anyone. Or, of you dare to -- you fully deserve those people yelling at you, or worse.. Those who use FreeBSD to offer integration services and are qualified do not whine, neither they wait. Those people do what the promised to do: provide the customer with the requested solution. No, you are not born with prior knowledge of how ports work on FreeBSD, it takes lots of time, effort and discipline to learn. You either invest in learning the basic skills required to offer your services to others, or you go play elsewhere. Daniel ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
Hi, On 07 June 2012 12:17:14 Daniel Kalchev wrote: On 07.06.12 02:09, Erich wrote: Those minor issues are, having the recent mess in front of my eyes, a simple negative exaggeration. What is that price worth, if the system is faulting and rendered useless or partially useless? just do what was recommended in this thread: wait. Tell this ones to a commercial client. They will use words on you for which use you get a life ban on this list. If you are not qualified enough to handle issues like this, you would be better to avoid offering your integration services to anyone. Or, of you dare to -- you fully deserve those people yelling at you, or worse.. Those who use FreeBSD to offer integration services and are qualified do not whine, neither they wait. Those people do what the promised to do: provide the customer with the requested solution. No, you are not born with prior knowledge of how ports work on FreeBSD, it takes lots of time, effort and discipline to learn. You either invest in learning the basic skills required to offer your services to others, or you go play elsewhere. this is precisely the kind of answer which stops people from using FreeBSD. Thank you for repelling more people and keeping the user base small. Erich ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
On 07.06.12 12:30, Erich wrote: On 07 June 2012 12:17:14 Daniel Kalchev wrote: just do what was recommended in this thread: wait. Tell this ones to a commercial client. They will use words on you for which use you get a life ban on this list. If you are not qualified enough to handle issues like this, you would be better to avoid offering your integration services to anyone. Or, of you dare to -- you fully deserve those people yelling at you, or worse.. Those who use FreeBSD to offer integration services and are qualified do not whine, neither they wait. Those people do what the promised to do: provide the customer with the requested solution. No, you are not born with prior knowledge of how ports work on FreeBSD, it takes lots of time, effort and discipline to learn. You either invest in learning the basic skills required to offer your services to others, or you go play elsewhere. this is precisely the kind of answer which stops people from using FreeBSD. Thank you for repelling more people and keeping the user base small. None of this is unique to FreeBSD. It is exactly the same no matter what OS or other tool you use. Either you know your tools and do your job for the benefit of your customers. Or you don't know your tools, to the detriment of those who trusted your claims otherwise. As expected, you got the last sentence wrong. I wasn't referring to FreeBSD, but to consulting and integration services :) English is apparently not native to both of us. Daniel ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
Hi, On 07 June 2012 12:58:14 Daniel Kalchev wrote: On 07.06.12 12:30, Erich wrote: On 07 June 2012 12:17:14 Daniel Kalchev wrote: this is precisely the kind of answer which stops people from using FreeBSD. Thank you for repelling more people and keeping the user base small. None of this is unique to FreeBSD. It is exactly the same no matter what OS or other tool you use. Either you know your tools and do your job for the benefit of your customers. Or you don't know your tools, to the detriment of those who trusted your claims otherwise. As expected, you got the last sentence wrong. I wasn't referring to FreeBSD, but to consulting and integration services :) English is apparently not native to both of us. you imply here several things which are totally wrong. I was joining this saying a small change would help newcomers to make their life easier. Did you ever notice this? I am also in a totally different field meanwhile. Erich ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
On 06/07/12 11:17, Daniel Kalchev wrote: On 07.06.12 02:09, Erich wrote: Those minor issues are, having the recent mess in front of my eyes, a simple negative exaggeration. What is that price worth, if the system is faulting and rendered useless or partially useless? just do what was recommended in this thread: wait. ... well, I will pass this to those who fund my research. Wait. Yes ... the right answer. Tell this ones to a commercial client. They will use words on you for which use you get a life ban on this list. Not even commercial clients ... I have the impression that the people who are using FreeBSD MUST be professionals in any way - or just adventurers. This impression can be emphazized by picking up some of the comments made here. If you are not qualified enough to handle issues like this, you would be better to avoid offering your integration services to anyone. Or, of you dare to -- you fully deserve those people yelling at you, or worse.. Those who use FreeBSD to offer integration services and are qualified do not whine, neither they wait. Those people do what the promised to do: provide the customer with the requested solution. ... in some cases this needs the deep knowledge of all ports/software provided and used and this is simply impossible, or at least null convergent probability. In some cases I see a dicrepancy between what is reality and what is predicated. If it comes to the evidence, that something has been mismanaged, then there is always this allmighty excuse: FreeBSD is a volunteer system developed by volunteers blabla. I'm also a volunteer using FreeBSD! And I spend a lot of time trying to help. But at some points this gets very frustrating! Totally corrupted ports (not FreeBSD itself!), and so a corrupted system, no fallback mechanism although the problem is there for decades by now (as stated in this thread). In my case, just for instance, we/I use FreeBSD as server AND client to avoid loads of work having to many different OSes. We and it is definit use OpenLDAP as the users's housekeeping backend. Thunderbird is NOT working with OpenLDAP (which is, I asume, an important piece of a modern multiuser environment and part of the power to serve). I personally live with this problem now for almost a year, since I can circumvent the crash of Thunderbird by starting Firefox prior to Thunderbrd and start Thunderbird while Firefox is starting. This behaviour is very strange and it is obviously well known to those who use a similar environment. And this problem occurs on EVERY new setup I made using LDAP as the backend. There is a open PR, there are some hints (not working for me), there are some notes in the mailing list. Obviously, FreeBSd is rarely used in such an environment or is stuck with ancient NIS/YP setups, I do not know. I only can ask the list herein - since the professionals in our computer center of the campus are in most cases in Linux. Well, to come back to the subject: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD? I guess there are plenty of reasons as well as there are plenty of reasons of the opposit. But one very frustrating scaring thing is the arrogancy of several people here - leveling out the great help of those who wish to help. oh No, you are not born with prior knowledge of how ports work on FreeBSD, it takes lots of time, effort and discipline to learn. You either invest in learning the basic skills required to offer your services to others, or you go play elsewhere. Daniel ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
Hi, On 07 June 2012 12:58:59 Hartmann, O. wrote: On 06/07/12 11:17, Daniel Kalchev wrote: On 07.06.12 02:09, Erich wrote: Those minor issues are, having the recent mess in front of my eyes, a simple negative exaggeration. What is that price worth, if the system is faulting and rendered useless or partially useless? just do what was recommended in this thread: wait. ... well, I will pass this to those who fund my research. Wait. Yes ... the right answer. to make them ban FreeBSD from all of their projects? Tell this ones to a commercial client. They will use words on you for which use you get a life ban on this list. Not even commercial clients ... I have the impression that the people who are using FreeBSD MUST be professionals in any way - or just adventurers. This impression can be emphazized by picking up some of the comments made here. I am back to BSD since around ten years. I never really left Unix since I started with it during the last days of the Seventies. It amazes me most that this kind of people always have been there. I made then some fun with them when they have been on the suppliers side. I think they have forgotten why Unix is there in the first place. If you are not qualified enough to handle issues like this, you would be better to avoid offering your integration services to anyone. Or, of you dare to -- you fully deserve those people yelling at you, or worse.. Those who use FreeBSD to offer integration services and are qualified do not whine, neither they wait. Those people do what the promised to do: provide the customer with the requested solution. ... in some cases this needs the deep knowledge of all ports/software provided and used and this is simply impossible, or at least null convergent probability. It is not possible but it is also not needed. Why create a hurdle when there is a simple way around it? In some cases I see a dicrepancy between what is reality and what is predicated. If it comes to the evidence, that something has been mismanaged, then there is always this allmighty excuse: FreeBSD is a volunteer system developed by volunteers blabla. I'm also a volunteer using FreeBSD! And I spend a lot of time trying to help. This all they say sounds always so one-sided. As being the perfect human is the standard. But at some points this gets very frustrating! Totally corrupted ports (not FreeBSD itself!), and so a corrupted system, no fallback mechanism although the problem is there for decades by now (as stated in this thread). Which alone makes a big joke out of these answers. In my case, just for instance, we/I use FreeBSD as server AND client to avoid loads of work having to many different OSes. We and it is definit use OpenLDAP as the users's housekeeping backend. Thunderbird is NOT working with OpenLDAP (which is, I asume, an Ok, I do not like LDAP for 'private' reasons and as such it is not on any of the machines under my control. But even then, hey, you are joking? important piece of a modern multiuser environment and part of the power to serve). I personally live with this problem now for almost a year, since I can circumvent the crash of Thunderbird by starting Firefox prior to Thunderbrd and start Thunderbird while Firefox is starting. This behaviour is very strange and it is obviously well known to those who use a similar environment. I also do not use Thunderbird as my primary e-mail client because of its erratic behaviour. And this problem occurs on EVERY new setup I made using LDAP as the backend. I wonder why you are still using FreeBSD then. Especially with these kind of comments around. There is a open PR, there are some hints (not working for me), there are some notes in the mailing list. Obviously, FreeBSd is rarely used in such an environment or is stuck with ancient NIS/YP setups, I do not know. I must say, luckily, I have had to give in when it came to the company's public server. It uses Linux and does not have any of these issues. I only can ask the list herein - since the professionals in our computer center of the campus are in most cases in Linux. Sad to say. Well, to come back to the subject: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD? I guess there are plenty of reasons as well as there are plenty of reasons of the opposit. But one very frustrating scaring thing is the arrogancy of several people here - leveling out the great help of those who wish to help. When they are successful in keeping people away, there position is stronger then. Anyway, I joined this thread more for the fun until I realised that it should be possible to put the salty finger into this big wound of FreeBSD. Erich ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
On 07.06.12 13:58, Hartmann, O. wrote: ... in some cases this needs the deep knowledge of all ports/software provided and used and this is simply impossible, or at least null convergent probability. Only God is required to know and be able to do everything. We humans can be imperfect. In some cases I see a dicrepancy between what is reality and what is predicated. If it comes to the evidence, that something has been mismanaged, then there is always this allmighty excuse: FreeBSD is a volunteer system developed by volunteers blabla. I'm also a volunteer using FreeBSD! And I spend a lot of time trying to help. There was recently an very nice short announcement on how/why Netflix has decided to use FreeBSD as the base for their delivery infrastructure platform. You understand, that Netflix are serious about this. According to them, they have identified where the current state of FreeBSD needs help and contributed their fixes back to the community voluntarily (they are not required by the BSD license, unlike with GPL). I didn't read any excuse on part of Netflix why they can't use FreeBSD. But at some points this gets very frustrating! Totally corrupted ports (not FreeBSD itself!), and so a corrupted system, no fallback mechanism although the problem is there for decades by now (as stated in this thread). Why the whining? I too am sometimes frustrated that the ports tree gets broken from time to time. Usually this means I will have to spend more time on it. Time is something I don't have much to spare. But I know that whining does not help. Learning is faster. I also know there *is* fallback mechanism here. One that was explained in this thread a number of times: sync your ports tree to a non-broken date. Usually, just the day before the announcement that broke it appears in /usr/ports/UPDATING is enough. I also see your problem with Thunderbird and LDAP. But you didn't provide enough information, except it does not work. So let's try to narrow it a bit: - does the same setup work with another OS? (the same setup, same software versions) - you imply interaction with Firefox. Is Firefox crashing too? - have you traced the crash to specific library (there should be enough error messages, or at least core file to investigate)? - have you considered that this all might be configuration problem of some sort? Or using some non-standard compiler like GCC 4.6? I know it is always FreeBSD's and not user fault, but still... I guess there are plenty of reasons as well as there are plenty of reasons of the opposit. But one very frustrating scaring thing is the arrogancy of several people here - leveling out the great help of those who wish to help. I don't know about others, but I won't buy your attempt at social engineering here. Like I said, you are either capable of doing certain job, or you are not. Blaming others for your lack of knowledge on certain subject is not very productive. Claiming that those who suggest the problem might be sometimes caused by the device in front of the computer are arrogant is even less productive. By the way, asking a question politely is going to produce a lot more useful replies, than tell me this, you bunch of arrogant FreeBSD users!. Or to put it in summary: if you are not critical to yourself, there is no point being critical towards others, much less FreeBSD. Daniel ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
On 06.06.12 05:31, Erich wrote: On 05 June 2012 10:55:57 Chris Rees wrote: It is absolutely a bad idea for beginners to be using tagged/dated ports trees-- they are not supported and will lead to many complaints about problems that were solved since the tag. How do they fall back when things went wrong? The handbook states that there is no fall back option. Their fall back option has a name: Windows. No need for Windows propaganda here. We have had enough of this already. Thanks. By the way, for those who tried FreeBSD and found it too much, there is another, way better alternative: OS X Someone else does the packaging, testing etc. for you and you still don't run Windows :) This, of course, if the person, unlike you, does not ignore the advice to use PC-BSD. The same FreeBSD, with someone else taking care of watching the ports tree, configuring, compiling, packaging etc. Daniel ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
On 06.06.12 05:35, Erich wrote: Warning: Be very careful to specify any tag= fields correctly. Some tags are valid only for certain collections of files. If you specify an incorrect or misspelled tag, CVSup will delete files which you probably do not want deleted. In particular, use only tag=. for the ports-* collections.' I think that this states very clearly that there are no tags. So, after we learned that every thing I am asking is there anyway in an official and supported way, only the documentation has to be changed. It does not state, that there are not tags. It states, that you should be using tag=. Unless, you know exactly what are you doing and unless you know what an particular tag that exists in the ports tree means. In your language: normal users of the ports tree should use tag=. as anything else is not official and not supported. Normal users can specify date=somedate to get the version of the ports tree as it was on that date (and time, up to a second). The documentation is correct. Daniel ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
On Jun 6, 2012 3:38 AM, Erich erichfreebsdl...@ovitrap.com wrote: Hi, On 05 June 2012 7:13:47 Mark Linimon wrote: On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 03:23:01PM +0700, Erich wrote: But is this true for apache only or for the whole ports tree? Entire tree. my problem with this is that the documentation states something very different: From the handbook at the location where beginners will look for it: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/cvsup.html 'Which version(s) of them do you want? With CVSup, you can receive virtually any version of the sources that ever existed. That is possible because the cvsupd server works directly from the CVS repository, which contains all of the versions. You specify which one of them you want using the tag= and date= value fields. Warning: Be very careful to specify any tag= fields correctly. Some tags are valid only for certain collections of files. If you specify an incorrect or misspelled tag, CVSup will delete files which you probably do not want deleted. In particular, use only tag=. for the ports-* collections.' I think that this states very clearly that there are no tags. No it doesn't. It states clearly that you shouldn't use tags unless you know what you are doing, as several of us have explained more than once. Chris ___ 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
port graphics/inkscape: not compiling anymore WAS: Re: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
On 06/06/12 10:41, Nicolas Rachinsky wrote: * O. Hartmann ohart...@zedat.fu-berlin.de [2012-06-03 22:55 +0200]: ... I spent now two complete days watching my boxes updating their ports. Several ports do not compile anymore (inkscape, libreoffice, libxul, to name some of the very hurting ones!). Do you have graphics/libwpg01 installed? After deinstalling this, I was able to compile inkscape again. Nicolas Yes, this port is installed and it is required by a lot of ports I have installed. I will not deinstall this port since I fear it will not be able to be reinstalled after that and increase the mess as it is already. ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
Hi, let me rite the answer on top before my mouse scrolling down. I am fully aware of what you are writing. I am saying this from the point of view people have when they start with FreeBSD. This little help would make them feel much much saver. I know that it would not change much in real life. Erich On 06 June 2012 16:45:03 Mark Andrews wrote: In message 1805884.wjzbqif...@x220.ovitrap.com, Erich writes: ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
Hi, On 06 June 2012 8:48:10 Chris Rees wrote: On Jun 6, 2012 3:38 AM, Erich erichfreebsdl...@ovitrap.com wrote: No it doesn't. It states clearly that you shouldn't use tags unless you know what you are doing, as several of us have explained more than once. is my English really this bad? From the handbook: '. In particular, use only tag=. for the ports-* collections.' Erich ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
-Original Message- From: owner-freebsd-curr...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd- curr...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Kalchev Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 2:46 AM To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD? On 06.06.12 05:31, Erich wrote: On 05 June 2012 10:55:57 Chris Rees wrote: It is absolutely a bad idea for beginners to be using tagged/dated ports trees-- they are not supported and will lead to many complaints about problems that were solved since the tag. How do they fall back when things went wrong? The handbook states that there is no fall back option. Their fall back option has a name: Windows. No need for Windows propaganda here. We have had enough of this already. Thanks. By the way, for those who tried FreeBSD and found it too much, there is another, way better alternative: OS X Someone else does the packaging, testing etc. for you and you still don't run Windows :) This, of course, if the person, unlike you, does not ignore the advice to use PC-BSD. The same FreeBSD, with someone else taking care of watching the ports tree, configuring, compiling, packaging etc. Daniel I don't see what the overall issue is. When I first got introduced to FreeBSD, I installed all of my 3rd part software using packages as I thought that's how it was done. It installed fast but was a little out of date. Later I learned about ports and slowly started using that for more and more software to get the newer versions. Now I am at the point where all of it is compiled from updated portstree and I fully expect every time that I upgrade that some ports will break and have to be manually corrected. I would not expect less from software that has so many random interdependencies that are handled by multiple groups. Have you ever mapped a tree of all the package dependencies it takes to install gnome on a bare system? I got lost after the 20th level or so in. There is constant compilation testing on the software to ID the blatant compile errors, but tsometimes we just have the magical winning combo of fail options on our system and it will break. Overall I see it as packages are flat stable at the cost of being out of date, and ports are current but not guaranteed to compile without intervention. The Maintainers do give a very good shot to make them stable but sometimes one person cannot maintain millions of lines of code and not make a glitch occasionally, or make it out on time when a dependency changes. ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
Hi, On 06 June 2012 9:21:22 Sean Cavanaugh wrote: Overall I see it as packages are flat stable at the cost of being out of date, and ports are current but not guaranteed to compile without intervention. The Maintainers do give a very good shot to make them stable but sometimes one person cannot maintain millions of lines of code and not make a glitch occasionally, or make it out on time when a dependency changes. isn't the date of the packages the date of the last release of the branch? Aren't the chances high then to get a working ports tree? You can follow the discussion about this subject for at least 10 years back. The result is always the same. In parallel is the discussion why so little people are using FreeBSD. Do you understand what I want to say? Erich ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
On 6 June 2012 14:48, Erich Dollansky er...@alogreentechnologies.com wrote: Hi, On 06 June 2012 9:21:22 Sean Cavanaugh wrote: Overall I see it as packages are flat stable at the cost of being out of date, and ports are current but not guaranteed to compile without intervention. The Maintainers do give a very good shot to make them stable but sometimes one person cannot maintain millions of lines of code and not make a glitch occasionally, or make it out on time when a dependency changes. isn't the date of the packages the date of the last release of the branch? Aren't the chances high then to get a working ports tree? You can follow the discussion about this subject for at least 10 years back. The result is always the same. In parallel is the discussion why so little people are using FreeBSD. Do you understand what I want to say? I do understand it, but you don't seem to understand that we *do* understand what you're saying. - Tagged ports trees contain out of date software. - Security fixes cannot be backported to tagged trees- we *do* *not* *have* *resources* for this. - Occasionally you may see minor issues when following the latest branch of ports. This is the price you pay for being up to date, with the very latest of software. Chris ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
On 6 June 2012 14:12, Erich erichfreebsdl...@ovitrap.com wrote: Hi, On 06 June 2012 8:48:10 Chris Rees wrote: On Jun 6, 2012 3:38 AM, Erich erichfreebsdl...@ovitrap.com wrote: No it doesn't. It states clearly that you shouldn't use tags unless you know what you are doing, as several of us have explained more than once. is my English really this bad? From the handbook: '. In particular, use only tag=. for the ports-* collections.' Your English is fine, but being told to use tag=. != tag=. is the only tag that exists. Chris ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
In parallel is the discussion why so little people are using FreeBSD. Do you understand what I want to say? Erich I would say there are 3 main things. 1) the 3rd party apps, which has already been covered of how overpowering it can appear to newbies. Not going into depth anymore 2) lack of advertising the name. If you ask most IT professionals to name as many OSes as they can that they hear about, usually boils down to Windows, Linux, Solaris, AIX,OSX and then the oddball IBM ones like Z, I, etc. not many people hear about FreeBSD or what systems they use on a regular basis that are based on it. From my understanding Hotmail was originally a BSD based system before they were gobbled by Microsoft. Most newer websites are either IIS or a LAMP stack as far as people know. The one new addition to the list of systems that uses FreeBSD is Netflix as they advertise that is what their OpenConnect system runs on (FreeBSD 9.0) https://signup.netflix.com/openconnect/software In general though there is not the huge My system is so stable because it's based on (Free)BSD out in the wild. The in the know techs know about it but not Joe CIO at XYZ company 3) Most of the support for FreeBSD is provided by the community and a couple of shops that cater to it like iX. There is not the same level of direct support as the Linux community has (ie, RedHat, Novell, Canonical, etc) and I believe a lot of people perceive that as the system not mature enough to be used beyond a hobbyist OS. There are some extremely biased places out there that, if the maintenance isn't 4-5 figures a year, it's not enterprise level support. This scenarios is not something that can really be fixed unless the community became for-profit like most higher end Linux distros did, which I think is also not necessarily the best of ideas. I can see iX getting away with it if they did a spin of PC-BSD that was pretty much geared at servers only , and not desktops, kind of like how CentOS is for servers and Fedora is for Desktops (you can do reverse rolls, but why would you?) ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
Hi, On 06 June 2012 15:15:24 Chris Rees wrote: On 6 June 2012 14:48, Erich Dollansky er...@alogreentechnologies.com wrote: Hi, On 06 June 2012 9:21:22 Sean Cavanaugh wrote: Overall I see it as packages are flat stable at the cost of being out of date, and ports are current but not guaranteed to compile without intervention. The Maintainers do give a very good shot to make them stable but sometimes one person cannot maintain millions of lines of code and not make a glitch occasionally, or make it out on time when a dependency changes. isn't the date of the packages the date of the last release of the branch? Aren't the chances high then to get a working ports tree? You can follow the discussion about this subject for at least 10 years back. The result is always the same. In parallel is the discussion why so little people are using FreeBSD. Do you understand what I want to say? I do understand it, but you don't seem to understand that we *do* understand what you're saying. - Tagged ports trees contain out of date software. that is the idea. - Security fixes cannot be backported to tagged trees- we *do* *not* *have* *resources* for this. It should not be done. When I manually fall back to the last release ports tree I can get, I have the same result. When I use packages, the result is either identical but at least it can be assumed that the packages are not the latest versions. After going back, I get a running system again. I then wait until the ports tree seems to be ok again. I do then the upgrade. I exchange a running system against a broken system. The running system might has some security issues, the broken system migh works 99.9% but the little thing I would like to have is not there for me at the moment. So, I understand your reasoning. I also understand the problems beginners have. At least this are the problems I have heard from the few people I could convince to check FreeBSD out. If I remember right, none has had any complaints about FreeBSD itself. All problems have been linked to the ports tree. It turned out very often that they did not differ between the ports tree and the operating system. I do not ask for myself. I have found my solution for this. As a consequence out this, I am precisely in the situation you described. The machine is out of date. The machine might has security problems but the machine does what I want to do. And, after some time of compiling and upgrading and waiting the machine is current again. I wonder now. Is my solution really so awkward? Erich ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
On 06/06/12 16:15, Chris Rees wrote: On 6 June 2012 14:48, Erich Dollansky er...@alogreentechnologies.com wrote: Hi, On 06 June 2012 9:21:22 Sean Cavanaugh wrote: Overall I see it as packages are flat stable at the cost of being out of date, and ports are current but not guaranteed to compile without intervention. The Maintainers do give a very good shot to make them stable but sometimes one person cannot maintain millions of lines of code and not make a glitch occasionally, or make it out on time when a dependency changes. isn't the date of the packages the date of the last release of the branch? Aren't the chances high then to get a working ports tree? You can follow the discussion about this subject for at least 10 years back. The result is always the same. In parallel is the discussion why so little people are using FreeBSD. Do you understand what I want to say? I do understand it, but you don't seem to understand that we *do* understand what you're saying. - Tagged ports trees contain out of date software. This is the implicite nature of a tag and - I presume - intended. - Security fixes cannot be backported to tagged trees- we *do* *not* *have* *resources* for this. The user has the choice: either stay with an outdated port's tree OR with a uptodate port's tree, but the risk of non working ports. - Occasionally you may see minor issues when following the latest branch of ports. This is the price you pay for being up to date, with the very latest of software. Those minor issues are, having the recent mess in front of my eyes, a simple negative exaggeration. What is that price worth, if the system is faulting and rendered useless or partially useless? Chris signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
On Tue, 5 Jun 2012, Mark Linimon wrote: It's not particularly easy to see this on cvsweb. But let's take a look at a random Mk/bsd.*.mk file via 'cvs log': RCS file: /home/FreeBSD/pcvs/ports/Mk/bsd.apache.mk,v Working file: bsd.apache.mk head: 1.36 branch: locks: strict access list: symbolic names: RELEASE_8_3_0: 1.35 RELEASE_9_0_0: 1.33 RELEASE_7_4_0: 1.26 RELEASE_8_2_0: 1.26 RELEASE_6_EOL: 1.26 [...] RELEASE_6_1_0: 1.9 RELEASE_5_5_0: 1.9 [...] and so forth. The line RELEASE_8_3_0: 1.35 tells you the version of this file as of tag RELEASE_8_3_0 was r1.35. So that's what's on the 8.3R distribution media. Is there any way to access this information using tools like pkg_* pkgng or ports make targets? Or does one use cvs/svn? ps: Thanks all for your work on ports! ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
Hi, On 06 June 2012 21:59:49 O. Hartmann wrote: On 06/06/12 16:15, Chris Rees wrote: On 6 June 2012 14:48, Erich Dollansky er...@alogreentechnologies.com wrote: Those minor issues are, having the recent mess in front of my eyes, a simple negative exaggeration. What is that price worth, if the system is faulting and rendered useless or partially useless? just do what was recommended in this thread: wait. Tell this ones to a commercial client. They will use words on you for which use you get a life ban on this list. And then they wonder: one thing ive been doing is de-selection most of the options.. the box is my server. we [freebsders] have lost the desktop 'market' From an e-mail titled 'how can I fix this'. Erich ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
Hi, On 05 June 2012 15:33:16 Mark Andrews wrote: In message 2490439.ec638ti...@x220.ovitrap.com, Erich writes: Hi, On 05 June 2012 12:48:20 Mark Andrews wrote: In message 3506767.fvm2kmt...@x220.ovitrap.com, Erich writes: On 05 June 2012 11:24:25 Mark Andrews wrote: It's already there. If you want the ports as of FreeBSD 4.x EOL then the tag is RELEASE_4_EOL. If you want ports as of FreeBSD 9.0 then the tag is RELEASE_9_9_0. I did not know this. Do you have a link for this? I never read about it. http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/cvs-tags.html All of these, with the exception of HEAD (which is always a valid tag), only apply to the src/ tree. The ports/, doc/, and www/ trees are not branched. I understand this that I can use these tags on the FreeBSD sources but not on the ports. I never tried this on the ports. Erich ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 12:18:33PM +0700, Erich wrote: I did not know this. Do you have a link for this? I never read about it. The EOL announcements have them. I don't think the release announcements do, however. mcl ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 01:00:45PM +0700, Erich wrote: All of these, with the exception of HEAD (which is always a valid tag), only apply to the src/ tree. The ports/, doc/, and www/ trees are not branched. If you create a branch, you must create a tag for that branch. However, you can create a tag without creating a branch. That is what is done for the ports tree. It's not particularly easy to see this on cvsweb. But let's take a look at a random Mk/bsd.*.mk file via 'cvs log': RCS file: /home/FreeBSD/pcvs/ports/Mk/bsd.apache.mk,v Working file: bsd.apache.mk head: 1.36 branch: locks: strict access list: symbolic names: RELEASE_8_3_0: 1.35 RELEASE_9_0_0: 1.33 RELEASE_7_4_0: 1.26 RELEASE_8_2_0: 1.26 RELEASE_6_EOL: 1.26 [...] RELEASE_6_1_0: 1.9 RELEASE_5_5_0: 1.9 keyword substitution: kv total revisions: 36;selected revisions: 36 description: revision 1.36 date: 2012/05/23 08:17:48; author: miwi; state: Exp; lines: +2 -2 - Remove emacs mode, -*- mode: ...; -*- [1] - Comments for BUILD_ and RUN_DEPENDS fail to mention alternate means to specify dependencie [2] - Fix make reinstall [3] - Trivial comment change for PORTDATA [4] [...] and so forth. The line RELEASE_8_3_0: 1.35 tells you the version of this file as of tag RELEASE_8_3_0 was r1.35. So that's what's on the 8.3R distribution media. mcl ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
On 05 June 2012 15:33:16 Mark Andrews wrote: In message 2490439.EC638TI0j3 at x220.ovitrap.com, Erich writes: Hi, On 05 June 2012 12:48:20 Mark Andrews wrote: In message 3506767.Fvm2KmtnYf at x220.ovitrap.com, Erich writes: On 05 June 2012 11:24:25 Mark Andrews wrote: It's already there. If you want the ports as of FreeBSD 4.x EOL then the tag is RELEASE_4_EOL. If you want ports as of FreeBSD 9.0 then the tag is RELEASE_9_9_0. I did not know this. Do you have a link for this? I never read about it. http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/cvs-tags.html All of these, with the exception of HEAD (which is always a valid tag), only apply to the src/ tree. The ports/, doc/, and www/ trees are not branched. I understand this that I can use these tags on the FreeBSD sources but not on the ports. I never tried this on the ports. I sent a long reply to your earlier message on freebsd-ports explaining exactly this -- how each Ports tree snapshot has a version number: the date spec. Also, how a few special snapshots also have a second version number: the release tag. I also explained how to find and use these, with and without cvs. Am I wasting my time by trying to answer your questions, E.? b. ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
Hi, On 05 June 2012 1:01:37 Mark Linimon wrote: On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 12:18:33PM +0700, Erich wrote: I did not know this. Do you have a link for this? I never read about it. The EOL announcements have them. I don't think the release announcements do, however. this is the problem. I would like to be able to go back to the last release in case of a problem and restart from there. When it is possible to tag the EOL, it should be as easy to tag the SOL (start of life). This would save a lot of time for many people. Erich ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
Hi, On 05 June 2012 1:09:50 Mark Linimon wrote: On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 01:00:45PM +0700, Erich wrote: All of these, with the exception of HEAD (which is always a valid tag), only apply to the src/ tree. The ports/, doc/, and www/ trees are not branched. If you create a branch, you must create a tag for that branch. However, you can create a tag without creating a branch. That is what is done for the ports tree. It's not particularly easy to see this on cvsweb. But let's take a look at a random Mk/bsd.*.mk file via 'cvs log': here we are. I never found this. RCS file: /home/FreeBSD/pcvs/ports/Mk/bsd.apache.mk,v Working file: bsd.apache.mk head: 1.36 branch: locks: strict access list: symbolic names: RELEASE_8_3_0: 1.35 RELEASE_9_0_0: 1.33 RELEASE_7_4_0: 1.26 RELEASE_8_2_0: 1.26 RELEASE_6_EOL: 1.26 [...] RELEASE_6_1_0: 1.9 RELEASE_5_5_0: 1.9 If this list would make it into the documentation, all I asked would be already there. I could write this but my English will need some corrections. If you could give a link to how to do this properly, I would do it then. But is this true for apache only or for the whole ports tree? Erich ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
Hi, On 05 June 2012 3:08:17 b. f. wrote: On 05 June 2012 15:33:16 Mark Andrews wrote: In message 2490439.EC638TI0j3 at x220.ovitrap.com, Erich writes: Hi, All of these, with the exception of HEAD (which is always a valid tag), only apply to the src/ tree. The ports/, doc/, and www/ trees are not branched. I understand this that I can use these tags on the FreeBSD sources but not on the ports. I never tried this on the ports. I sent a long reply to your earlier message on freebsd-ports explaining exactly this -- how each Ports tree snapshot has a version number: the date spec. Also, how a few special snapshots also have a second version number: the release tag. I also explained how to find and use these, with and without cvs. Am I wasting my time by trying to answer your questions, E.? I think that you missed my point. The point is that this has to be made available for beginners. As long as the handbook states that this does not apply to the ports tree, at least beginners will stop there. Erich ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
On 6/5/12, Erich erichfreebsdl...@ovitrap.com wrote: Hi, On 05 June 2012 3:08:17 b. f. wrote: On 05 June 2012 15:33:16 Mark Andrews wrote: In message 2490439.EC638TI0j3 at x220.ovitrap.com, Erich writes: Hi, All of these, with the exception of HEAD (which is always a valid tag), only apply to the src/ tree. The ports/, doc/, and www/ trees are not branched. I understand this that I can use these tags on the FreeBSD sources but not on the ports. I never tried this on the ports. I sent a long reply to your earlier message on freebsd-ports explaining exactly this -- how each Ports tree snapshot has a version number: the date spec. Also, how a few special snapshots also have a second version number: the release tag. I also explained how to find and use these, with and without cvs. Am I wasting my time by trying to answer your questions, E.? I think that you missed my point. The point is that this has to be made available for beginners. As long as the handbook states that this does not apply to the ports tree, at least beginners will stop there. If you had hoped to make your point by feigning ignorance of something that you had just been told on another list, then, yes, I missed your point -- it was a decidedly subtle one. You write in this thread: I did not know this. Do you have a link for this? I never read about it. Despite the fact that I explained it to you earlier, with an example: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2012-June/075491.html The part of the Handbook that you cited above, at: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/cvs-tags.html is the introduction to A.7.1. It refers only to branch tags, and not to the release tags discussed in A.7.2, where the ports release tags are mentioned. This was also in my earlier message, along with the comment that A.7.2 could be improved. As far as the version numbers are concerned, I do not understand what you want. I already told you how you could use the existing version numbers with a one-line modification to a sup file, or via cvs. Do you want the date spec of the ports tree to be included in the name of the port tarballs distributed on the FreeBSD server? Or that you want portsnap to get a feature to selectively roll-back to earlier ports tree snapshots? Or that you simply want changes to the documentation, explaining how to roll back? As I told you, I'm a bit skeptical that your hypothetical beginner, after having encountered a problem building a port, would usually be able to diagnose the problem and find the right snapshot to use. And those that aren't beginners could probably figure out how to do so with the documentation that already exists. But I suppose that the document committers would consider a proposal to add an example of how to perform a roll-back. If you want to discuss this further, please move it to a new topic on the freebsd-ports or freebsd-doc lists, which seem more appropriate. b. ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
On Jun 5, 2012 3:07 AM, Erich erichfreebsdl...@ovitrap.com wrote: Hi, On 05 June 2012 11:24:25 Mark Andrews wrote: Version tagging is just a convient way to get a snapshot at a particular point in time unless you create branches that are them we do not ask for more. There should be only one difference to a snapshot. As snapshot has a date. No matter in what state the ports tree was, it is in that state in the ports tree. If user - especially the one not so fit in this aspect - want to use a snapshot, it will be difficult to impossible to figure out which one they need. If version numbers would be introduced, it would be ok to use the version number of the FreeBSD and have only version available which reflect the release version of the ports tree. People here want to make always a perfect system. People like me want to have some small things in there available with a click. As the ports trees are there anyway, only the direct link to the snapshot of that day or a version number in the ports tree would be needed to make this available for people who just want to use FreeBSD. Please note, I do not want any extra work spend here to make this perfect. I only want a simple way to fall back to a big net which is not that old from which the user can restart. I and most others will purposely refuse to document this in any official capacity, but I'll give you a hint. Look for the date tag in man csup. Chris ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
On 5 June 2012 09:25, Erich erichfreebsdl...@ovitrap.com wrote: Hi, On 05 June 2012 3:08:17 b. f. wrote: On 05 June 2012 15:33:16 Mark Andrews wrote: In message 2490439.EC638TI0j3 at x220.ovitrap.com, Erich writes: Hi, All of these, with the exception of HEAD (which is always a valid tag), only apply to the src/ tree. The ports/, doc/, and www/ trees are not branched. I understand this that I can use these tags on the FreeBSD sources but not on the ports. I never tried this on the ports. I sent a long reply to your earlier message on freebsd-ports explaining exactly this -- how each Ports tree snapshot has a version number: the date spec. Also, how a few special snapshots also have a second version number: the release tag. I also explained how to find and use these, with and without cvs. Am I wasting my time by trying to answer your questions, E.? I think that you missed my point. The point is that this has to be made available for beginners. As long as the handbook states that this does not apply to the ports tree, at least beginners will stop there. Beginners should be using packages anyway. It is absolutely a bad idea for beginners to be using tagged/dated ports trees-- they are not supported and will lead to many complaints about problems that were solved since the tag. Chris ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 03:23:01PM +0700, Erich wrote: But is this true for apache only or for the whole ports tree? Entire tree. mcl ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
Hi, On 05 June 2012 1:09:50 Mark Linimon wrote: On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 01:00:45PM +0700, Erich wrote: All of these, with the exception of HEAD (which is always a valid tag), only apply to the src/ tree. The ports/, doc/, and www/ trees are not branched. If you create a branch, you must create a tag for that branch. However, you can create a tag without creating a branch. That is what is done for the ports tree. I found now the location where this information is missing for beginners. http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/ports-using.html I simply cannot believe that beginners would expect this information to find this in the section for updating the kernel. Erich ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
Hi, On 05 June 2012 1:09:50 Mark Linimon wrote: On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 01:00:45PM +0700, Erich wrote: All of these, with the exception of HEAD (which is always a valid tag), only apply to the src/ tree. The ports/, doc/, and www/ trees are not branched. If you create a branch, you must create a tag for that branch. However, you can create a tag without creating a branch. That is what is done for the ports tree. I found now the point in which all normal users will give up: The handbook states this: Which version(s) of them do you want? 'With CVSup, you can receive virtually any version of the sources that ever existed. That is possible because the cvsupd server works directly from the CVS repository, which contains all of the versions. You specify which one of them you want using the tag= and date= value fields. Warning: Be very careful to specify any tag= fields correctly. Some tags are valid only for certain collections of files. If you specify an incorrect or misspelled tag, CVSup will delete files which you probably do not want deleted. In particular, use only tag=. for the ports-* collections.' Why should a normal user continue to search for a tag when the handbook is so clear on this? Erich ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
Hi, On 05 June 2012 10:55:57 Chris Rees wrote: On 5 June 2012 09:25, Erich erichfreebsdl...@ovitrap.com wrote: On 05 June 2012 3:08:17 b. f. wrote: On 05 June 2012 15:33:16 Mark Andrews wrote: In message 2490439.EC638TI0j3 at x220.ovitrap.com, Erich writes: Hi, All of these, with the exception of HEAD (which is always a valid tag), only apply to the src/ tree. The ports/, doc/, and www/ trees are not branched. I understand this that I can use these tags on the FreeBSD sources but not on the ports. I never tried this on the ports. I sent a long reply to your earlier message on freebsd-ports explaining exactly this -- how each Ports tree snapshot has a version number: the date spec. Also, how a few special snapshots also have a second version number: the release tag. I also explained how to find and use these, with and without cvs. Am I wasting my time by trying to answer your questions, E.? I think that you missed my point. The point is that this has to be made available for beginners. As long as the handbook states that this does not apply to the ports tree, at least beginners will stop there. Beginners should be using packages anyway. when are then allowed to use the ports? The first time they will use the ports, they are beginners again. It is absolutely a bad idea for beginners to be using tagged/dated ports trees-- they are not supported and will lead to many complaints about problems that were solved since the tag. How do they fall back when things went wrong? The handbook states that there is no fall back option. Their fall back option has a name: Windows. Erich ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
Hi, On 05 June 2012 7:13:47 Mark Linimon wrote: On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 03:23:01PM +0700, Erich wrote: But is this true for apache only or for the whole ports tree? Entire tree. my problem with this is that the documentation states something very different: From the handbook at the location where beginners will look for it: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/cvsup.html 'Which version(s) of them do you want? With CVSup, you can receive virtually any version of the sources that ever existed. That is possible because the cvsupd server works directly from the CVS repository, which contains all of the versions. You specify which one of them you want using the tag= and date= value fields. Warning: Be very careful to specify any tag= fields correctly. Some tags are valid only for certain collections of files. If you specify an incorrect or misspelled tag, CVSup will delete files which you probably do not want deleted. In particular, use only tag=. for the ports-* collections.' I think that this states very clearly that there are no tags. So, after we learned that every thing I am asking is there anyway in an official and supported way, only the documentation has to be changed. Erich ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
Hi, On 06 June 2012 0:42:47 Mark Andrews wrote: In message 1541214.zfrdxxb...@x220.ovitrap.com, Erich writes: Hi, On 05 June 2012 1:09:50 Mark Linimon wrote: On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 01:00:45PM +0700, Erich wrote: All of these, with the exception of HEAD (which is always a valid tag), only apply to the src/ tree. The ports/, doc/, and www/ trees are not branched. If you create a branch, you must create a tag for that branch. However, you can create a tag without creating a branch. That is what is done for the ports tree. I found now the location where this information is missing for beginners. http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/ports-using.html I simply cannot believe that beginners would expect this information to find this in the section for updating the kernel. Erich Because, while you believe it is better to roll back to the release point it really isn't. The ports tree is rarely broken for long. When it is broken people will tell you to roll back to a good date and give you the date to use. I've had to roll back a couple of times in 11+ years of updating and never to a release point. What is there is good advice. Use a up-to-date ports tree. If it is broken wait a days or so and try again. If it is still broken report the problem using send-pr. you will find thousands of notes that people should not run bleeding edge when it comes to the kernel. But people are forced to run bleeding edge on the ports. The documentation than even states that there is no fall back. You state it as being just normal to wait for a week or more until the problem is solved. I cannot imagine that people who come to FreeBSD and get trapped somehow will stick to it then. They might will ask on this list just to learn that there is no help available. Just wait. People who have to make decisions what operating system should be used on their workplaces will not like this and stick with whatever they have. I believe that this is a very good user repellent. Erich ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
In message 3851080.jqjobqx...@x220.ovitrap.com, Erich writes: yes, you miss a very simple thing. Updated this morning your ports tree. Your client asks for something for Monday morning for which you need now a program which needs some kind of PNG but you did not install it. It seems to me that you are missing a number of aspects and options of how you do configuration control on a system, if you think the ports collection is your only tool. Take a peek at src/tools/tools/sysbuild for instance. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 p...@freebsd.org | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
On 03.06.12 23:55, O. Hartmann wrote: On 06/03/12 15:29, Erich wrote: yes, you miss a very simple thing. Updated this morning your ports tree. Your client asks for something for Monday morning for which you need now a program which needs some kind of PNG but you did not install it. ... I spent now two complete days watching my boxes updating their ports. Several ports do not compile anymore (inkscape, libreoffice, libxul, to name some of the very hurting ones!). Someone forced you to recompile your ports? :) Just for the record, I too saw a lot of re-compilation necessary because of this PNG library update and for the most part, this was not necessary, but unfortunately this is how the ports dependencies are described by their maintainers - the upgrade tools like portmaster or portupgrade can hardly help much here. Anyway, I am rebuilding on occasions like this just for the fun of it. Always have spare/backup system to work on while my primary desktop rebuilds because it breaks from time to time. By the way, this rebuild didn't give my lowly dual-core core2 6300 at 1.86 GHz much trouble. In any case, suppose a customer comes and asks for an application that uses PNG, you just updated your ports tree and then you either: 1. Have already libpng installed. Then you just don't rebuild libpng, just install the new software. You do this by going to the ports directory like /usr/ports/cathegory/greatstuff and type make install. This will use the existing libpng on your system. No trouble. 2. Don't have libpng installed yet. You install the new port any way you like. Since you have no libpng on your system, you have no dependencies to upgrade (and wait). You will end up with the new libpng on your system. No trouble. Applying some common sense to these situations helps great deal. It also helps to avoid any prejudice towards FreeBSD or whatever OS you end up using in the process. Daniel ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
... In any case, suppose a customer comes and asks for an application that uses PNG, you just updated your ports tree and then you either: 1. Have already libpng installed. Then you just don't rebuild libpng, just install the new software. You do this by going to the ports directory like /usr/ports/cathegory/greatstuff and type make install. This will use the existing libpng on your system. No trouble. ... except the name of the libpng shared library changed, so the builds of many ports will fail because they'll look for libpng15 instead of libpng. Problem. You could use local modifications to your tree, or symlinks and libmap.conf(5) settings, to work around this in many cases, but it would be a nuisance. Also, some other ports may have been patched to work with the new shared library. In this case, it won't make much difference, but, speaking more generally about updates of this kind, there may be problems. 2. Don't have libpng installed yet. You install the new port any way you like. Since you have no libpng on your system, you have no dependencies to upgrade (and wait). You will end up with the new libpng on your system. No trouble. ... except that it usually takes a few days for some of the bugs to be found and fixed, and the dust to settle, even for major updates that have undergone routine testing. So if you have a tight deadline, there could be a problem, because some of your builds may fail due to unexpected interactions with other software, non-default settings, etc. Or some updated software may work differently or improperly. Applying some common sense to these situations helps great deal. It also helps to avoid any prejudice towards FreeBSD or whatever OS you end up using in the process. Yes. The sensible thing to do is to check to see that you're not updating your ports tree immediately after major changes have been made, if you're concerned about stability, and you don't have much time to fix things. If you have updated your tree, back-up your installed packages before attempting to update them (pkg_create -b, pkgng backup, etc.). If you then find that the new version of the tree is unsuitable, you can revert to an earlier snapshot using cvs/csup and release/date tags, roll back to your old packages, and proceed. These issues are not peculiar to FreeBSD, and we expect to see continued improvement in both Ports and the use of packages. b. ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
On Sun, Jun 03, 2012 at 10:55:37PM +0200, O. Hartmann wrote: On 06/03/12 15:29, Erich wrote: And if a port build is broken then the maintainer needs to fix it, that is the solution. Look at the comment of the maintainer of LibreOffice ... LibreOffice is not a small port, I managed to make 3.5.x work until the boost upgrade indirectly broke it. LibreOffice is quite complicated to work on and I am only working on it to maintain it alive. Other projects like pkgng and some huge changes on the port infrastructure are taking all my free time right now. Remember this is a volunteer work, I already sent request for people to be help on LibreOffice. I got some help from time to time, but noone really come to take the hard work on LibreOffice, so yes my replies are still the same I'm just trying to keep it alive I missed 3.5.3 and now we are at 3.5.4 and I don't know when I'll start to work. The work on it is not that complicated but it requires a huge amount of time which I currently don't have, and upstream is really nice to help porting. Sorry, Bapt pgpJ16igVQfmI.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
On 3 June 2012 21:55, O. Hartmann ohart...@zedat.fu-berlin.de wrote: On 06/03/12 15:29, Erich wrote: Hi, On 03 June 2012 PM 5:14:10 Adam Strohl wrote: On 6/3/2012 11:14, Erich wrote: What I really do not understand in this whole discussion is very simple. Is it just a few people who run into problems like this or is this simply ignored by the people who set the strategy for FreeBSD? I mention since yeares here that putting version numbers onto the port tree would solve many of these problems. All I get as an answer is that it is not possible. I think that this should be easily possible with the limitation that older versions do not have security fixes. Yes, but of what help is a security fix if there is no running port for the fix? I feel like I'm missing something. Why would you ever want to go back to an old version of the ports tree? You're ignoring tons of security issues! ... I think the PNG update isn't a security issue. And for not being a security issue, it triggered an inadequate mess! And if a port build is broken then the maintainer needs to fix it, that is the solution. Look at the comment of the maintainer of LibreOffice ... I must be missing something else here, it just seems like the underlying need for this is misguided (and dangerous from a security perspective). yes, you miss a very simple thing. Updated this morning your ports tree. Your client asks for something for Monday morning for which you need now a program which needs some kind of PNG but you did not install it. ... I spent now two complete days watching my boxes updating their ports. Several ports do not compile anymore (inkscape, libreoffice, libxul, to name some of the very hurting ones!). Do you have a machine that is fast enough to upgrade all your ports and still finish what your client needs Monday morning? Even my fastest box, a brand new 6 core Sandy-Bridge-E, wasn't capable of compiling all the ports in due time. Several ports requested attendance, several, as mentioned, didn't compile out of the blue. The ports tree is not broken as such. Only the installation gets broken in some sense. Have a version number there would allow people to go back to the last known working ports tree, install the software - or whatever has to be done - with a working system. Of course, the next step will be an upgrade. But only after the work which brings in the money is done. You do not face this problem on Windows. You can run a 10 year old 'kernel' and still install modern software. Erich I like having a very modern system with the most recent software. But in some cases, like these days with the PNG, FreeBSD's ports becomes again a problem. There is no convenient way to downgrade or allow the user/admin managing how to deal with the load of updates. You can't have both. As has been repeatedly explained to you, you should not expect an easy life with the very latest of software. Either stick to releases, or put up with lots of compiling etc-- you should not complain because of self-inflicted problems. Please remember that we do compile packages for release, or if more up to date packages are required you can use the stable package sets which are rarely over five days or so. Chris ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
I'm not (only) pointing finger and whining, but maybe PC-BSD could relegate someone permanently to help you with libreoffice, if indeed desktop is so important to them? I'm not sure how exactly PC-BSD and iXsystems are related (I know that iXystems provided you with build system at some point), but from my point of view *office port should be at least as important to PC-BSD as KDE infrastructure. Apart from that other idea, that I brought up on -office and nobody responded (libreoffice volunteer fund). -- View this message in context: http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/Re-Why-Are-You-NOT-Using-FreeBSD-tp5714253p5714951.html Sent from the freebsd-current mailing list archive at Nabble.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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 08:53:58AM -0700, Jakub Lach wrote: I'm not (only) pointing finger and whining, but maybe PC-BSD could relegate someone permanently to help you with libreoffice, if indeed desktop is so important to them? I'm not sure how exactly PC-BSD and iXsystems are related (I know that iXystems provided you with build system at some point), but from my point of view *office port should be at least as important to PC-BSD as KDE infrastructure. Apart from that other idea, that I brought up on -office and nobody responded (libreoffice volunteer fund). -- View this message in context: http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/Re-Why-Are-You-NOT-Using-FreeBSD-tp5714253p5714951.html Sent from the freebsd-current mailing list archive at Nabble.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 iXsystem is providing a build box for libreoffice (thanks to them). regards, Bapt pgpwnmlt4g268.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
I'm NOT using FreeBSD because it doesn't ship with /bin/ksh. WTF?! ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
FWIW; --- Lun 4/6/12, Jakub Lach jakub_l...@mailplus.pl ha scritto: I'm not (only) pointing finger and whining, but maybe PC-BSD could relegate someone permanently to help you with libreoffice, if indeed desktop is so important to them? I am aware that PC-BSD has been indeed providing build resources to our LibreOffice maintainer so you cant really blame them. I personally enjoy working on Apache OpenOffice's FreeBSD port and I am glad about having both suites available, but eevn though they are very similar I am not interested in maintaining LibreOffice; not even if I got paid to do it. What people should realize is that maintaining such big packages is difficult and the issue is ultimately not money: if there is no interest from developers and porters to spend (a lot of) time on it no one will do it. 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
Re: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
I saw LibreOffice as cleaning-up *office effort, maybe my hopes were displaced, maybe not. I personally do not care if it will be LibreOffice or Apache OpenOffice as long as it's working and not pulling in KDE4/QT4/GTK (most people/linux distros are abandoning OO for Libre though it appears), but if human resources are scarce, shouldn't we (who?) decide that one big editor (tm) is plenty? -- View this message in context: http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/Re-Why-Are-You-NOT-Using-FreeBSD-tp5714253p5714969.html Sent from the freebsd-current mailing list archive at Nabble.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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
*misplaced :) -- View this message in context: http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/Re-Why-Are-You-NOT-Using-FreeBSD-tp5714253p5714978.html Sent from the freebsd-current mailing list archive at Nabble.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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
Hi, Could you please stop this thread and go wining elsewhere, but not to freebsd-current. Thanks matthias (running 10-CURRENT on a netbook) -- Matthias Apitz e g...@unixarea.de - w http://www.unixarea.de/ UNIX since V7 on PDP-11, UNIX on mainframe since ESER 1055 (IBM /370) UNIX on x86 since SVR4.2 UnixWare 2.1.2, FreeBSD since 2.2.5 ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
--- Lun 4/6/12, Jakub Lach jakub_l...@mailplus.pl ha scritto: ... I personally do not care if it will be LibreOffice or Apache OpenOffice as long as it's working and not pulling in KDE4/QT4/GTK (most people/linux distros are abandoning OO for Libre though it appears), but if human resources are scarce, shouldn't we (who?) decide that one big editor (tm) is plenty? I am not meaning you should use one or the other, I really don't care. I am saying that if you want to see LibreOffice or Chrome or anything working well then *you* have to do your part and not assume it's PC-BSD or whomever else's fault when it fails. If you really think the issue is money then perhaps you should draw your hand in your pocket and send a targeted donation to our current port maintainer. I also think this thread doesn't belong in -current, maybe in -advocacy or -chat. 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
Re: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
On 06/04/12 17:24, Chris Rees wrote: On 3 June 2012 21:55, O. Hartmann ohart...@zedat.fu-berlin.de wrote: On 06/03/12 15:29, Erich wrote: Hi, On 03 June 2012 PM 5:14:10 Adam Strohl wrote: On 6/3/2012 11:14, Erich wrote: What I really do not understand in this whole discussion is very simple. Is it just a few people who run into problems like this or is this simply ignored by the people who set the strategy for FreeBSD? I mention since yeares here that putting version numbers onto the port tree would solve many of these problems. All I get as an answer is that it is not possible. I think that this should be easily possible with the limitation that older versions do not have security fixes. Yes, but of what help is a security fix if there is no running port for the fix? I feel like I'm missing something. Why would you ever want to go back to an old version of the ports tree? You're ignoring tons of security issues! ... I think the PNG update isn't a security issue. And for not being a security issue, it triggered an inadequate mess! And if a port build is broken then the maintainer needs to fix it, that is the solution. Look at the comment of the maintainer of LibreOffice ... I must be missing something else here, it just seems like the underlying need for this is misguided (and dangerous from a security perspective). yes, you miss a very simple thing. Updated this morning your ports tree. Your client asks for something for Monday morning for which you need now a program which needs some kind of PNG but you did not install it. ... I spent now two complete days watching my boxes updating their ports. Several ports do not compile anymore (inkscape, libreoffice, libxul, to name some of the very hurting ones!). Do you have a machine that is fast enough to upgrade all your ports and still finish what your client needs Monday morning? Even my fastest box, a brand new 6 core Sandy-Bridge-E, wasn't capable of compiling all the ports in due time. Several ports requested attendance, several, as mentioned, didn't compile out of the blue. The ports tree is not broken as such. Only the installation gets broken in some sense. Have a version number there would allow people to go back to the last known working ports tree, install the software - or whatever has to be done - with a working system. Of course, the next step will be an upgrade. But only after the work which brings in the money is done. You do not face this problem on Windows. You can run a 10 year old 'kernel' and still install modern software. Erich I like having a very modern system with the most recent software. But in some cases, like these days with the PNG, FreeBSD's ports becomes again a problem. There is no convenient way to downgrade or allow the user/admin managing how to deal with the load of updates. You can't have both. As has been repeatedly explained to you, you should not expect an easy life with the very latest of software. Well, and repeatedly (no offense!) I will point out in this case, that I was FORCED having the latest software by the ports system! That it a difference in having running FreeBSD CURRENT on my own risk, or FreeBSD-STABLE due to new hardware and new drivers only supported by those and having a regular port update, which blows up the system because of the newest software! I take the burden of having not an easy life, but this, what is expected from so many users of FreeBSD, is simply beyond ... Either stick to releases, or put up with lots of compiling etc-- you should not complain because of self-inflicted problems. As I repeatedly have to point out in this case - the issue is not with STABLE and CURRENT, it is also with RELEASE. And as it has been pointed out herein so many times: FreeBSD ports lack in a version tagging. How would you suggest avoiding the problems we face with the ports by being sticky on RELEASE, if the problem is spread over all branches? Please remember that we do compile packages for release, or if more up to date packages are required you can use the stable package sets which are rarely over five days or so. If it is about the binary packages - then you're right. Stick with RELEASE and binary packages - if available (the mentioned office packages are often much delayed). In such a case one is better with a binary spread version of an OS and this would exactly hit the subject of the thread: Why NOT using ... blablabla Chris At the end, I'd like to see more care about the way ports get updated. There is no way to avoid messes like described at this very moment. And it is a kind of unedifying . oh signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Jakub Lach jakub_l...@mailplus.pl wrote: just the base system is the only part that needs to be unified, everything else can be installed from source. You really don't know what you are talking about, do you? -- View this message in context: http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/Re-Why-Are-You-NOT-Using-FreeBSD-tp5714253p5714654.html Sent from the freebsd-current mailing list archive at Nabble.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 The base system is usually the kernel and binaries plus configuration files. Everything from gcc to Xorg can be downloaded and built from original source files. Ports provide a framework for the system to be stable during an upgrade; however, although suggestede, it is not required nor are the standard port settings for each application. ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
Hi, On 04 June 2012 17:24:31 Baptiste Daroussin wrote: On Sun, Jun 03, 2012 at 10:55:37PM +0200, O. Hartmann wrote: On 06/03/12 15:29, Erich wrote: And if a port build is broken then the maintainer needs to fix it, that is the solution. Look at the comment of the maintainer of LibreOffice ... LibreOffice is not a small port, I managed to make 3.5.x work until the The work on it is not that complicated but it requires a huge amount of time which I currently don't have, and upstream is really nice to help porting. I hope that this is all just a misunderstanding. I read the tread as such that LibreOffice is just an example of what can go wrong. Of course, it is your time and your work and nobody has the right to criticise you for your efforts. I hope that it is ok for you to use 'your' port as an example here for what can go wrong. Erich ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
On 04 June 2012 16:24:56 Chris Rees wrote: On 3 June 2012 21:55, O. Hartmann ohart...@zedat.fu-berlin.de wrote: On 06/03/12 15:29, Erich wrote: Hi, On 03 June 2012 PM 5:14:10 Adam Strohl wrote: On 6/3/2012 11:14, Erich wrote: What I really do not understand in this whole discussion is very simple. Is it just a few people who run into problems like this or is this simply ignored by the people who set the strategy for FreeBSD? I mention since yeares here that putting version numbers onto the port tree would solve many of these problems. All I get as an answer is that it is not possible. I think that this should be easily possible with the limitation that older versions do not have security fixes. Yes, but of what help is a security fix if there is no running port for the fix? I feel like I'm missing something. Why would you ever want to go back to an old version of the ports tree? You're ignoring tons of security issues! ... I think the PNG update isn't a security issue. And for not being a security issue, it triggered an inadequate mess! And if a port build is broken then the maintainer needs to fix it, that is the solution. Look at the comment of the maintainer of LibreOffice ... I must be missing something else here, it just seems like the underlying need for this is misguided (and dangerous from a security perspective). yes, you miss a very simple thing. Updated this morning your ports tree. Your client asks for something for Monday morning for which you need now a program which needs some kind of PNG but you did not install it. ... I spent now two complete days watching my boxes updating their ports. Several ports do not compile anymore (inkscape, libreoffice, libxul, to name some of the very hurting ones!). Do you have a machine that is fast enough to upgrade all your ports and still finish what your client needs Monday morning? Even my fastest box, a brand new 6 core Sandy-Bridge-E, wasn't capable of compiling all the ports in due time. Several ports requested attendance, several, as mentioned, didn't compile out of the blue. The ports tree is not broken as such. Only the installation gets broken in some sense. Have a version number there would allow people to go back to the last known working ports tree, install the software - or whatever has to be done - with a working system. Of course, the next step will be an upgrade. But only after the work which brings in the money is done. You do not face this problem on Windows. You can run a 10 year old 'kernel' and still install modern software. Erich I like having a very modern system with the most recent software. But in some cases, like these days with the PNG, FreeBSD's ports becomes again a problem. There is no convenient way to downgrade or allow the user/admin managing how to deal with the load of updates. You can't have both. As has been repeatedly explained to you, you should not expect an easy life with the very latest of software. but FreeBSD only offer bleeding edge. This is why I suggest to have version numbers on the ports tree. Erich ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
Hi, On 05 June 2012 11:24:25 Mark Andrews wrote: Version tagging is just a convient way to get a snapshot at a particular point in time unless you create branches that are them we do not ask for more. There should be only one difference to a snapshot. As snapshot has a date. No matter in what state the ports tree was, it is in that state in the ports tree. If user - especially the one not so fit in this aspect - want to use a snapshot, it will be difficult to impossible to figure out which one they need. If version numbers would be introduced, it would be ok to use the version number of the FreeBSD and have only version available which reflect the release version of the ports tree. People here want to make always a perfect system. People like me want to have some small things in there available with a click. As the ports trees are there anyway, only the direct link to the snapshot of that day or a version number in the ports tree would be needed to make this available for people who just want to use FreeBSD. Please note, I do not want any extra work spend here to make this perfect. I only want a simple way to fall back to a big net which is not that old from which the user can restart. You can add a huge note to the links stating the risks. This is all fine. There is another reason why I ask for this. I noticed a long time ago that the ports are in a better shape around the release date of a new version. So, I try to get it always around the release dates. But, some times - you know how life is - I miss this date. It does not kill me but it leads some times to extra work steps I can do but I see the problems people will face who know FreeBSD not that well. One doesn't have to live at the bleeding edge with ports if one doesn't want to even when compiling. One can live a day, a week, a month behind the bleeding edge and allow other to hit problems and report them. How is this done with the knowledge of a beginner? Erich ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
One doesn't have to live at the bleeding edge with ports if one doesn't want to even when compiling. One can live a day, a week, a month behind the bleeding edge and allow other to hit problems and report them. To be pedantic, there's a lot of difference between reporting problems, and supplying fixes. Sometimes figuring out the fixes is beyond the capabilities of our maintainers, of course. People should feel free to ask for help on the mailing lists or forums in those cases. But our general problem won't be solved merely by tagging. There have to be people willing to test based only on whatever tree, or branch, or whatever, has been tagged. This is on reason why the tree at release time is _somewhat_ more stable: we are asking people to test, test, test. (The fact that we slow down the rate of major changes to the tree accounts for the rest.) mcl ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
Hi, On 05 June 2012 12:48:20 Mark Andrews wrote: In message 3506767.fvm2kmt...@x220.ovitrap.com, Erich writes: On 05 June 2012 11:24:25 Mark Andrews wrote: It's already there. If you want the ports as of FreeBSD 4.x EOL then the tag is RELEASE_4_EOL. If you want ports as of FreeBSD 9.0 then the tag is RELEASE_9_9_0. I did not know this. Do you have a link for this? I never read about it. Erich ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
Hi, 2012/6/3 Erich erichfreebsdl...@ovitrap.com: [...] I witnessed those cases several times and at this moment, our four remaining FreeBSD servers and my personal desktop as well as my private box are rendered unusable in terms of having no LibreOffice since it doesn't compile anymore on FreeBSD 9-STABLE/amd64 and 10-CURRENT/amd64. Can I recommend jails to you? I compile ports in a jail. When everything went through, I move this outside and install it. If something does not compile, I keep normally the old ports tree. poudriere + pkgng is especially nice for that kind of things :-) At the moment, this mess is introduced with a new PNG library. And we are updating on life machines, that means, they are not freshly Have fun with it. I have a running FreeBSD and will not touch the ports tree before this all has settled. I didn't have any special trouble switching my production boxes (mostly website hosting, and backup handling) to pkgng. What kind of trouble did you run into ? [...] Well, one may argue with me about server and desktop. Comparing Linux (several distros) with FreeBSd and Windows makes the limited adavntages of FreeBSD getting rendered neglegible. We need PowerPoint or a similar office product for presentations, I'm getting strangled by students when using LaTeX and beamer or PowerDot. The pressure from the Windows world is large. Why would students need to edit your presentations ? For viewing, they shouldn't care about what generated the pdf/ps/dvi/whatever. By the way, here, students are more likely to strangle you for not using *TeX/Beamer. Just for the fun. If you get Microsoft-Formats from a client and send it then back to the same client but in a different department, it is not sure that they can read their 'own' files. Had the problem once : I got sent paperwork, filled it, and send it to another department, which didn't have a recent enough version of M$ Office, so they were unable to read docx files. Regards, ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
Hi, On 03 June 2012 PM 5:14:10 Adam Strohl wrote: On 6/3/2012 11:14, Erich wrote: What I really do not understand in this whole discussion is very simple. Is it just a few people who run into problems like this or is this simply ignored by the people who set the strategy for FreeBSD? I mention since yeares here that putting version numbers onto the port tree would solve many of these problems. All I get as an answer is that it is not possible. I think that this should be easily possible with the limitation that older versions do not have security fixes. Yes, but of what help is a security fix if there is no running port for the fix? I feel like I'm missing something. Why would you ever want to go back to an old version of the ports tree? You're ignoring tons of security issues! And if a port build is broken then the maintainer needs to fix it, that is the solution. I must be missing something else here, it just seems like the underlying need for this is misguided (and dangerous from a security perspective). yes, you miss a very simple thing. Updated this morning your ports tree. Your client asks for something for Monday morning for which you need now a program which needs some kind of PNG but you did not install it. Do you have a machine that is fast enough to upgrade all your ports and still finish what your client needs Monday morning? The ports tree is not broken as such. Only the installation gets broken in some sense. Have a version number there would allow people to go back to the last known working ports tree, install the software - or whatever has to be done - with a working system. Of course, the next step will be an upgrade. But only after the work which brings in the money is done. You do not face this problem on Windows. You can run a 10 year old 'kernel' and still install modern software. Erich ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
Hi, On 03 June 2012 PM 5:14:10 Adam Strohl wrote: On 6/3/2012 11:14, Erich wrote: What I really do not understand in this whole discussion is very simple. Is it just a few people who run into problems like this or is this simply ignored by the people who set the strategy for FreeBSD? I mention since yeares here that putting version numbers onto the port tree would solve many of these problems. All I get as an answer is that it is not possible. I think that this should be easily possible with the limitation that older versions do not have security fixes. Yes, but of what help is a security fix if there is no running port for the fix? I feel like I'm missing something. Why would you ever want to go back to an old version of the ports tree? You're ignoring tons of security issues! And if a port build is broken then the maintainer needs to fix it, that is the solution. I must be missing something else here, it just seems like the underlying need for this is misguided (and dangerous from a security perspective). yes, you miss a very simple thing. Updated this morning your ports tree. Your client asks for something for Monday morning for which you need now a program which needs some kind of PNG but you did not install it. Do you have a machine that is fast enough to upgrade all your ports and still finish what your client needs Monday morning? The ports tree is not broken as such. Only the installation gets broken in some sense. Have a version number there would allow people to go back to the last known working ports tree, install the software - or whatever has to be done - with a working system. Of course, the next step will be an upgrade. But only after the work which brings in the money is done. You do not face this problem on Windows. You can run a 10 year old 'kernel' and still install modern software. Erich ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Erich erichfreebsdl...@ovitrap.com wrote: Hi, On 03 June 2012 PM 5:14:10 Adam Strohl wrote: On 6/3/2012 11:14, Erich wrote: What I really do not understand in this whole discussion is very simple. Is it just a few people who run into problems like this or is this simply ignored by the people who set the strategy for FreeBSD? I mention since yeares here that putting version numbers onto the port tree would solve many of these problems. All I get as an answer is that it is not possible. I think that this should be easily possible with the limitation that older versions do not have security fixes. Yes, but of what help is a security fix if there is no running port for the fix? I feel like I'm missing something. Why would you ever want to go back to an old version of the ports tree? You're ignoring tons of security issues! And if a port build is broken then the maintainer needs to fix it, that is the solution. I must be missing something else here, it just seems like the underlying need for this is misguided (and dangerous from a security perspective). yes, you miss a very simple thing. Updated this morning your ports tree. Your client asks for something for Monday morning for which you need now a program which needs some kind of PNG but you did not install it. Do you have a machine that is fast enough to upgrade all your ports and still finish what your client needs Monday morning? The ports tree is not broken as such. Only the installation gets broken in some sense. Have a version number there would allow people to go back to the last known working ports tree, install the software - or whatever has to be done - with a working system. Of course, the next step will be an upgrade. But only after the work which brings in the money is done. You do not face this problem on Windows. You can run a 10 year old 'kernel' and still install modern software. Erich ___ 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 I am not currently using FreeBSD because I am transient, two laptops and only one works, not able to set up a FreeBSD system- using Linux. ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
I had few troubles compiling OpenOffice, until closer inspection, that revealed I had forgotten to remove the redirection of libs to gcc4.6 in /etc/libmap.conf -- left from my experiments to like it for compiling ports… (with the pipe dream software will run faster) After cleaning my system of this junk completely, OpenOffice built just fine from the first try. Needless to say, this wasted few days for me -- but it was entirely my fault. Daniel On Jun 3, 2012, at 2:03 AM, Jakub Lach wrote: Hmm... Speaking of libreoffice ERROR: error 65280 occurred while making /usr/obj/usr/ports/editors/libreoffice/work/libreoffice-core-3.5.2.2/vcl/prj ? -- View this message in context: http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/Re-Why-Are-You-NOT-Using-FreeBSD-tp5714253p5714383.html Sent from the freebsd-current mailing list archive at Nabble.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 ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
On 06/03/12 15:29, Erich wrote: Hi, On 03 June 2012 PM 5:14:10 Adam Strohl wrote: On 6/3/2012 11:14, Erich wrote: What I really do not understand in this whole discussion is very simple. Is it just a few people who run into problems like this or is this simply ignored by the people who set the strategy for FreeBSD? I mention since yeares here that putting version numbers onto the port tree would solve many of these problems. All I get as an answer is that it is not possible. I think that this should be easily possible with the limitation that older versions do not have security fixes. Yes, but of what help is a security fix if there is no running port for the fix? I feel like I'm missing something. Why would you ever want to go back to an old version of the ports tree? You're ignoring tons of security issues! ... I think the PNG update isn't a security issue. And for not being a security issue, it triggered an inadequate mess! And if a port build is broken then the maintainer needs to fix it, that is the solution. Look at the comment of the maintainer of LibreOffice ... I must be missing something else here, it just seems like the underlying need for this is misguided (and dangerous from a security perspective). yes, you miss a very simple thing. Updated this morning your ports tree. Your client asks for something for Monday morning for which you need now a program which needs some kind of PNG but you did not install it. ... I spent now two complete days watching my boxes updating their ports. Several ports do not compile anymore (inkscape, libreoffice, libxul, to name some of the very hurting ones!). Do you have a machine that is fast enough to upgrade all your ports and still finish what your client needs Monday morning? Even my fastest box, a brand new 6 core Sandy-Bridge-E, wasn't capable of compiling all the ports in due time. Several ports requested attendance, several, as mentioned, didn't compile out of the blue. The ports tree is not broken as such. Only the installation gets broken in some sense. Have a version number there would allow people to go back to the last known working ports tree, install the software - or whatever has to be done - with a working system. Of course, the next step will be an upgrade. But only after the work which brings in the money is done. You do not face this problem on Windows. You can run a 10 year old 'kernel' and still install modern software. Erich I like having a very modern system with the most recent software. But in some cases, like these days with the PNG, FreeBSD's ports becomes again a problem. There is no convenient way to downgrade or allow the user/admin managing how to deal with the load of updates. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 4:55 PM, O. Hartmann ohart...@zedat.fu-berlin.de wrote: On 06/03/12 15:29, Erich wrote: Hi, On 03 June 2012 PM 5:14:10 Adam Strohl wrote: On 6/3/2012 11:14, Erich wrote: What I really do not understand in this whole discussion is very simple. Is it just a few people who run into problems like this or is this simply ignored by the people who set the strategy for FreeBSD? I mention since yeares here that putting version numbers onto the port tree would solve many of these problems. All I get as an answer is that it is not possible. I think that this should be easily possible with the limitation that older versions do not have security fixes. Yes, but of what help is a security fix if there is no running port for the fix? I feel like I'm missing something. Why would you ever want to go back to an old version of the ports tree? You're ignoring tons of security issues! ... I think the PNG update isn't a security issue. And for not being a security issue, it triggered an inadequate mess! And if a port build is broken then the maintainer needs to fix it, that is the solution. Look at the comment of the maintainer of LibreOffice ... I must be missing something else here, it just seems like the underlying need for this is misguided (and dangerous from a security perspective). yes, you miss a very simple thing. Updated this morning your ports tree. Your client asks for something for Monday morning for which you need now a program which needs some kind of PNG but you did not install it. ... I spent now two complete days watching my boxes updating their ports. Several ports do not compile anymore (inkscape, libreoffice, libxul, to name some of the very hurting ones!). Build the application directly from source. The suggestion to use the ports tree for software is so that the system has a consistent structure; however, when it comes down to it, just the base system is the only part that needs to be unified, everything else can be installed from source. Do you have a machine that is fast enough to upgrade all your ports and still finish what your client needs Monday morning? Even my fastest box, a brand new 6 core Sandy-Bridge-E, wasn't capable of compiling all the ports in due time. Several ports requested attendance, several, as mentioned, didn't compile out of the blue. The processor speed does not matter when compiling; on the other hand, processor compatibility is important. The ports tree is not broken as such. Only the installation gets broken in some sense. Have a version number there would allow people to go back to the last known working ports tree, install the software - or whatever has to be done - with a working system. Of course, the next step will be an upgrade. But only after the work which brings in the money is done. You do not face this problem on Windows. You can run a 10 year old 'kernel' and still install modern software. Erich I like having a very modern system with the most recent software. But in some cases, like these days with the PNG, FreeBSD's ports becomes again a problem. There is no convenient way to downgrade or allow the user/admin managing how to deal with the load of updates. At times it is necessary for the end user to edit files and build applications directly from source. If a homeless person like me can take time to learn FreeBSD to the point of working with PowerPC and other projects, then why can't the lot of you with all that you have take the time to learn enough to maintain something as simple as a third party application? ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
just the base system is the only part that needs to be unified, everything else can be installed from source. You really don't know what you are talking about, do you? -- View this message in context: http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/Re-Why-Are-You-NOT-Using-FreeBSD-tp5714253p5714654.html Sent from the freebsd-current mailing list archive at Nabble.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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
Hi, On 03 June 2012 PM 4:46:40 Jakub Lach wrote: just the base system is the only part that needs to be unified, everything else can be installed from source. You really don't know what you are talking about, do you? the chicken and the egg Erich ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD ?
On 06/01/12 21:46, Lars Engels wrote: On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 08:32:08PM +0100, Chris Rees wrote: On 1 June 2012 16:20, Nomen Nescio nob...@dizum.com wrote: Dear All , There is a thread Why Are You Using FreeBSD ? I think another thread with the specified subject 'Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD ? may be useful : If you are NOT using FreeBSD for any area or some areas , would you please list those areas with most important first to least important last ? 1a) On scietific production systems, FreeBSD has been banned due to the lack of HPC compilers and appropriate mathematical libraries. The lack of professional/academic support, like that from NAG in the late 1990s, has been droped for FreeBSD as well as the presence of C/C++/F95 compilers. 1b) The lack of GPGPU. This has become so important to HPC these days. We use nVidia GPU based TESLA boards with OpenCL software (CUDA is luckily not necessary). The lack of professional drivers for 64Bit on FreeBSD was long time an issue, nVidia now provides drivers, but they don't provide their CUDA/OpenCL libraries along with their nvcc compiler natively for 64Bit FreeBSD/amd64. The Linuxulator isn't any option. 2) Disk and network I/O issues under load. We realized that FreeBSD has some issues in multithreaded environments. Even on 6/12 or 12/24 core/thread systems, under heavy load (especially network and CPU load), disk I/O was (is?) poor. This is a no-go in a HPC environment. 3) Outdated ports OR not available ports: some important software maintained by the US government (USGS, NASA/JPL) is only provided for Mac OS X and some Linux derivatives. We created our own ports for some of those, but maintaining these, especially those provided by the USGS (ISIS3) is hard work. Other software, like the AMES StereoPipeline, seems to be crippled by intention when it comes to the sources (essential portions are vanished in the repositories). Developers are unwilling - by intention, lack of time or lack of capabilities. 4) The lack of clustering capabilities. The lack of a clustered filesystem grows more and more important in the area of HPC, where storage systems get spread over a department. I lost track in the development on FreeBSD since around 2003. At the moment, for me personally this issue isn't so important, but in combination with items 1) through 3) and the migration towards Linux (we use prefereably Ubuntu server, some Suse and on some servers CentOS/RedHat, which suffers from the Linux-narrowminded deseas as well, in my opinion, but you'll get support by Dell and others - in times of strangling contracts, a more and more restricted freedom of science in favor of business ... another story ...) Well, item 3 isn't a real FreeBSD issue. I have the impression that since the good old UNIX times, mid 1990s, a deadly Virus spread around called Linux, attracting development schemata known from Microsoft/Windows: narrow minded Linux-only sources, nearsighted development, shortcuts due to political reasons, even if the sources are available for all. I regret this development of open software very deeply and it is not the *BSD UNIX developers fault (excluding item 1 and 2, that are political issues and a burden of the BSD folks having made political decissions in the past!). I do not speak for my department and I do not speak for my colleagues. I speka for myself and my opinion. Personally, I use FreeBSD private and under my desk - and I really suffer from the lack of GPGPU, since even some opensource, high performance software like Blender benefetis tremendously from using CUDA/OpenCL if GPU is available. Regards, Oliver Hartmann signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
On 06/02/12 14:47, Daniel Kalchev wrote: On 02.06.12 15:32, Erich wrote: I know that the ports tree is a moving target. But it stops moving during the release period. This could be used to give a fall back solution. Or do I see this really too simple? The ports tree is a moving target during release periods still, although there are efforts to make movements smaller. This is why, after a release it suddenly moves more :) Daniel Even IF the ports tree IS a moving target, updating of UPDATING, for instance, follows most times AFTER the critical ports has been changed/updated and folks started updating their ports without realizing that they have shot themselfs into the foot! Since I'm with FreeBSD, StarOffice, OpenOffice and even now LibreOffice is a MESS! If you need to keep up with STABLE, in most cases due to modern hardware (*), binary packages are NOT provided or if so, they won't work due to some incompatibilities. I witnessed those cases several times and at this moment, our four remaining FreeBSD servers and my personal desktop as well as my private box are rendered unusable in terms of having no LibreOffice since it doesn't compile anymore on FreeBSD 9-STABLE/amd64 and 10-CURRENT/amd64. At the moment, this mess is introduced with a new PNG library. And we are updating on life machines, that means, they are not freshly installed, they have been maintained for several months now. Very often, when compalining about this, I get responses from people installing then the critical software in a virtual machine and/or on newly setup boxes. That doesn't reflect the way the systems have to be maintained. Well, one may argue with me about server and desktop. Comparing Linux (several distros) with FreeBSd and Windows makes the limited adavntages of FreeBSD getting rendered neglegible. We need PowerPoint or a similar office product for presentations, I'm getting strangled by students when using LaTeX and beamer or PowerDot. The pressure from the Windows world is large. (*) It might be true that FreeBSD runs well on older hardware. But when I order hardware from the budget I get, I do not want myself buying outdated hardware. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
On Jun 2, 2012 3:19 PM, O. Hartmann ohart...@zedat.fu-berlin.de wrote: On 06/02/12 14:47, Daniel Kalchev wrote: On 02.06.12 15:32, Erich wrote: I know that the ports tree is a moving target. But it stops moving during the release period. This could be used to give a fall back solution. Or do I see this really too simple? The ports tree is a moving target during release periods still, although there are efforts to make movements smaller. This is why, after a release it suddenly moves more :) Daniel Even IF the ports tree IS a moving target, updating of UPDATING, for instance, follows most times AFTER the critical ports has been changed/updated and folks started updating their ports without realizing that they have shot themselfs into the foot! Not reading UPDATING until there are problems is not the fault of the ports tree; it should be checked every time you update. Of course, many of us forget, but that still doesn't make it anyone else's problem when we do! Chris ___ 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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
Hmm... Speaking of libreoffice ERROR: error 65280 occurred while making /usr/obj/usr/ports/editors/libreoffice/work/libreoffice-core-3.5.2.2/vcl/prj ? -- View this message in context: http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/Re-Why-Are-You-NOT-Using-FreeBSD-tp5714253p5714383.html Sent from the freebsd-current mailing list archive at Nabble.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: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 04:03:49PM -0700, Jakub Lach wrote: Hmm... Speaking of libreoffice ERROR: error 65280 occurred while making /usr/obj/usr/ports/editors/libreoffice/work/libreoffice-core-3.5.2.2/vcl/prj ? -- View this message in context: http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/Re-Why-Are-You-NOT-Using-FreeBSD-tp5714253p5714383.html Sent from the freebsd-current mailing list archive at Nabble.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 Yeah libreoffice definitly needs some love, and have a fragile build system. Sorry I don't have time/motivation to work on it recently. regards, Bapt pgpJWt7h0A1qE.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
Hi, On 02 June 2012 PM 4:18:45 O. Hartmann wrote: On 06/02/12 14:47, Daniel Kalchev wrote: On 02.06.12 15:32, Erich wrote: I know that the ports tree is a moving target. But it stops moving during the release period. This could be used to give a fall back solution. Or do I see this really too simple? The ports tree is a moving target during release periods still, although there are efforts to make movements smaller. This is why, after a release it suddenly moves more :) Daniel Even IF the ports tree IS a moving target, updating of UPDATING, for instance, follows most times AFTER the critical ports has been changed/updated and folks started updating their ports without realizing that they have shot themselfs into the foot! it is worse when people suddenly need something they did not install before. Since I'm with FreeBSD, StarOffice, OpenOffice and even now LibreOffice is a MESS! If you need to keep up with STABLE, in most cases due to StarOffice a mess? Not compared to OpenOffice! I cannot remember that I have had such problems with StarOffice. As I used StarOffice to write cheques those days, people getting money from me would have made a lot of noise. I stopped doing this when OpenOffice came into the picture. modern hardware (*), binary packages are NOT provided or if so, they won't work due to some incompatibilities. Isn't the lack of a binary package the proof that something is difficult to compile? I witnessed those cases several times and at this moment, our four remaining FreeBSD servers and my personal desktop as well as my private box are rendered unusable in terms of having no LibreOffice since it doesn't compile anymore on FreeBSD 9-STABLE/amd64 and 10-CURRENT/amd64. Can I recommend jails to you? I compile ports in a jail. When everything went through, I move this outside and install it. If something does not compile, I keep normally the old ports tree. This is the main cause why I run the in serious problems when I need a new port which needs an update of the ports tree. At the moment, this mess is introduced with a new PNG library. And we are updating on life machines, that means, they are not freshly Have fun with it. I have a running FreeBSD and will not touch the ports tree before this all has settled. installed, they have been maintained for several months now. Very often, when compalining about this, I get responses from people installing then the critical software in a virtual machine and/or on newly setup boxes. That doesn't reflect the way the systems have to be maintained. This gets even more complicated. Try once to install a new machine, bring an old machine to the same state and then install on the new machine the same software which actually runs on the old one. This is something which I never managed. There is always something missing. Well, one may argue with me about server and desktop. Comparing Linux (several distros) with FreeBSd and Windows makes the limited adavntages of FreeBSD getting rendered neglegible. We need PowerPoint or a similar office product for presentations, I'm getting strangled by students when using LaTeX and beamer or PowerDot. The pressure from the Windows world is large. You forgot to mention Scribus. It is a fantastic tool for people who know how to handle it. But your are cut off if you cannot read the files coming from other people. Just for the fun. If you get Microsoft-Formats from a client and send it then back to the same client but in a different department, it is not sure that they can read their 'own' files. (*) It might be true that FreeBSD runs well on older hardware. But when I order hardware from the budget I get, I do not want myself buying outdated hardware. FreeBSD runs also well on new hardware if it is not a notebook. What I really do not understand in this whole discussion is very simple. Is it just a few people who run into problems like this or is this simply ignored by the people who set the strategy for FreeBSD? I mention since yeares here that putting version numbers onto the port tree would solve many of these problems. All I get as an answer is that it is not possible. I think that this should be easily possible with the limitation that older versions do not have security fixes. Yes, but of what help is a security fix if there is no running port for the fix? Erich ___ 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
