Re: why 100 packages are evil

2016-04-25 Thread Kevin Oberman
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 1:22 AM, David Chisnall wrote: > On 25 Apr 2016, at 06:48, Gerrit Kühn wrote: > > > >> Yes. It will be replaced by 'pkg upgrade' -- as far as I know, that's > >> the plan for 11.0-RELEASE. > > > > Hm... I never had any

Re: why 100 packages are evil

2016-04-25 Thread David Chisnall
On 25 Apr 2016, at 06:48, Gerrit Kühn wrote: > >> Yes. It will be replaced by 'pkg upgrade' -- as far as I know, that's >> the plan for 11.0-RELEASE. > > Hm... I never had any troubles with freebsd-update, it always "just > worked" for me. OTOH, I remember having

Re: why 100 packages are evil

2016-04-25 Thread Joe Holden
On 25/04/2016 08:39, Miroslav Lachman wrote: Gerrit Kühn wrote on 04/25/2016 07:48: On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 18:52:32 +0100 Matthew Seaman <matt...@freebsd.org> wrote about Re: why 100 packages are evil: MS> > Is freebsd-update going away as result of the new packaging ? Yes. It will

Re: why 100 packages are evil

2016-04-25 Thread Miroslav Lachman
Gerrit Kühn wrote on 04/25/2016 07:48: On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 18:52:32 +0100 Matthew Seaman <matt...@freebsd.org> wrote about Re: why 100 packages are evil: MS> > Is freebsd-update going away as result of the new packaging ? Yes. It will be replaced by 'pkg upgrade' -- as far as I

Re: why 100 packages are evil

2016-04-24 Thread Gerrit Kühn
On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 18:52:32 +0100 Matthew Seaman <matt...@freebsd.org> wrote about Re: why 100 packages are evil: MS> > Is freebsd-update going away as result of the new packaging ? > Yes. It will be replaced by 'pkg upgrade' -- as far as I know, that's > the plan for 11.0

Re: why 100 packages are evil

2016-04-23 Thread Matthew Seaman
On 23/04/2016 17:19, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > In message , Lyndon > Neren > berg writes: > >> With freebsd-update, an announcement comes out that says 'update'!. So we >> do. Move from 10.2-p11 to 10.2-p12. There is a very

Re: why 100 packages are evil

2016-04-23 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message , Lyndon Neren berg writes: >With freebsd-update, an announcement comes out that says 'update'!. So we >do. Move from 10.2-p11 to 10.2-p12. There is a very clear track record >of why and how this happened. Is

Re: why 100 packages are evil

2016-04-22 Thread Glen Barber
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 08:41:06PM -0700, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: > But the dependency base will be huge. Yet you fail to explain how. > Right now I can count on a very limited set of dependencies for > anything I ship as a 3rd party package. How is this different than the existing model? What

Re: why 100 packages are evil

2016-04-22 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg
Same as it is now for releases. Packages will be available for SAs/ENs. There is no intention to change this model. I get that. But the dependency base will be huge. Right now I can count on a very limited set of dependencies for anything I ship as a 3rd party package. Doing that for n>100

Re: why 100 packages are evil

2016-04-22 Thread Glen Barber
On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 03:21:38AM +, Glen Barber wrote: > On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 08:17:15PM -0700, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: > > With freebsd-update, an announcement comes out that says 'update'!. So we > > do. Move from 10.2-p11 to 10.2-p12. There is a very clear track record of > > why

Re: why 100 packages are evil

2016-04-22 Thread Glen Barber
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 08:17:15PM -0700, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: > With freebsd-update, an announcement comes out that says 'update'!. So we > do. Move from 10.2-p11 to 10.2-p12. There is a very clear track record of > why and how this happened. > > What will be the new update frequency with

why 100 packages are evil

2016-04-22 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg
Here's a real example. I have n Centos servers. Cron, once or twice a day, updates our local cache of the yum repos. Then nagios comes along and flags 35 packages out of date. An hour later, management comes along asking questions about the security implications of those packages. An hour