On 9/21/2014 6:53 PM, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
Michelle Sullivan wrote:
Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
Hi all,
The ports tree has been modified to only support pkg(8) as package
management
system for all supported version of FreeBSD.
if you were still using pkg_install (pkg_* tools) you
+--On 2 septembre 2014 13:47:32 +0200 Michelle Sullivan
miche...@sorbs.net wrote:
| Marcus von Appen wrote:
| Alban Hertroys haram...@gmail.com:
|
|
| I can totally understand that at some point it starts to get
| impossible to maintain two separate packaging systems and I understand
| that you
Mathieu Arnold wrote:
I still don't see what you have to say about what EOL mean, it's *End Of
Life* meaning after, it is dead, and won't exist any more.
Ahh so all those Windows XP servers are dead and don't work anymore...
--
Michelle Sullivan
http://www.mhix.org/
Tom Evans wrote:
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Michelle Sullivan miche...@sorbs.net wrote:
Tom Evans wrote:
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Michelle Sullivan miche...@sorbs.net
wrote:
I think portsnap should provide 'stable' - tested, known
working, security patched...
Mathieu Arnold wrote:
+--On 3 septembre 2014 16:36:29 +0200 Michelle Sullivan
miche...@sorbs.net wrote:
| Mathieu Arnold wrote:
| I still don't see what you have to say about what EOL mean, it's *End Of
| Life* meaning after, it is dead, and won't exist any more.
|
|
| Ahh so all those
+--On 3 septembre 2014 17:17:48 +0200 Michelle Sullivan
miche...@sorbs.net wrote:
| Mathieu Arnold wrote:
| +--On 3 septembre 2014 16:36:29 +0200 Michelle Sullivan
| miche...@sorbs.net wrote:
| | Mathieu Arnold wrote:
| | I still don't see what you have to say about what EOL mean, it's *End
| | Of
On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 05:17:48PM +0200, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
Mathieu Arnold wrote:
+--On 3 septembre 2014 16:36:29 +0200 Michelle Sullivan
miche...@sorbs.net wrote:
| Mathieu Arnold wrote:
| I still don't see what you have to say about what EOL mean, it's *End Of
| Life* meaning
Am 03.09.2014 um 17:15 schrieb Michelle Sullivan miche...@sorbs.net:
I learned that the ports tree was being updated so much that things
would break every day in just 580 packages I have.
I have to ask, why you had to build from the HEAD of the ports tree every day?
I never do this. I
Rainer Duffner wrote:
Am 03.09.2014 um 17:15 schrieb Michelle Sullivan miche...@sorbs.net
mailto:miche...@sorbs.net:
I learned that the ports tree was being updated so much that things
would break every day in just 580 packages I have.
I have to ask, why you had to build from the HEAD
On 9/1/14, 7:59 PM, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
Julian Elischer wrote:
You should try arguing with someone like Bank of Americas security and
operations
department
You work for the same company as me?
in a past life, they were a customer.
some day about whether they want to suddenly upgrade
On 9/1/14, 8:03 PM, Andrew Berg wrote:
On 2014.09.01 21:39, Julian Elischer wrote:
sigh.. when are we as a project, all going to learn that reality in
business is
that you often need to install stuff that is old. Its not always your
choice.
The custommers require it..
You should try arguing
On 2 September 2014 11:08, Julian Elischer jul...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 9/1/14, 8:03 PM, Andrew Berg wrote:
On 2014.09.01 21:39, Julian Elischer wrote:
sigh.. when are we as a project, all going to learn that reality in
business is
that you often need to install stuff that is old. Its not
On 2 September 2014 13:30, Michelle Sullivan miche...@sorbs.net wrote:
Andrew Berg wrote:
On 2014.09.01 22:09, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
That's my point - there was a patch waiting to submit that knowingly
broke pkg_install at midnight on the day after the EOL... the EOL
shouldn't be an
Alban Hertroys haram...@gmail.com:
On 2 September 2014 11:08, Julian Elischer jul...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 9/1/14, 8:03 PM, Andrew Berg wrote:
On 2014.09.01 21:39, Julian Elischer wrote:
sigh.. when are we as a project, all going to learn that reality in
business is
that you often need to
Marcus von Appen wrote:
Alban Hertroys haram...@gmail.com:
I can totally understand that at some point it starts to get
impossible to maintain two separate packaging systems and I understand
that you think 2 years is enough time to shake things out, but
software vendors aren't that quick.
On 2 Sep 2014, at 12:47, Michelle Sullivan miche...@sorbs.net wrote:
I'm not happy that the EOL was
not actually an EOL and it was actually a deadline.
I'm not sure what you think the difference is. The EOL says 'the FreeBSD
project no longer supports this configuration'. If you are not
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 6:52 AM, Marcus von Appen m...@freebsd.org wrote:
It also should be noted that everyone had enough time to raise those issues
in the time between tthe announcement and now
If this is an issue that needed to be brought up, then FreeBSD has
apparently never before been
On 9/1/2014 9:27 PM, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
oh and what was it, 1.3.6 - 1.3.7? broke
shit... (badly) ...
What broke? I am not aware of any new regressions in 1.3.7.
--
Regards,
Bryan Drewery
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Brandon Allbery allber...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 6:52 AM, Marcus von Appen m...@freebsd.org wrote:
It also should be noted that everyone had enough time to raise those issues
in the time between tthe announcement and now
If this is an issue that needed to be brought up, then
On Sep 2, 2014, at 4:47, Michelle Sullivan miche...@sorbs.net wrote:
Marcus von Appen wrote:
Alban Hertroys haram...@gmail.com:
I can totally understand that at some point it starts to get
impossible to maintain two separate packaging systems and I understand
that you think 2 years is
Garrett Cooper wrote:
On Sep 2, 2014, at 4:47, Michelle Sullivan miche...@sorbs.net wrote:
Marcus von Appen wrote:
Alban Hertroys haram...@gmail.com:
I can totally understand that at some point it starts to get
impossible to maintain two separate packaging systems and I
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Michelle Sullivan miche...@sorbs.net
wrote:
This is my only option - however, I suspect I'm already f**ked - my
build servers kicked off at 4am and the non pkg jails automatically
converted themselves to pkg.. the pkg jails obviously continued...
however I now
Brandon Allbery wrote:
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Michelle Sullivan miche...@sorbs.net
wrote:
This is my only option - however, I suspect I'm already f**ked - my
build servers kicked off at 4am and the non pkg jails automatically
converted themselves to pkg.. the pkg jails
Hi all,
The ports tree has been modified to only support pkg(8) as package management
system for all supported version of FreeBSD.
if you were still using pkg_install (pkg_* tools) you will have to upgrade your
system.
The simplest way is
cd /usr/ports/ports-mgmt/pkg
make install
then run
Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
Hi all,
The ports tree has been modified to only support pkg(8) as package management
system for all supported version of FreeBSD.
if you were still using pkg_install (pkg_* tools) you will have to upgrade
your
system.
The simplest way is
cd
And for the portsnap users?
In short, this change doesn't directly effect portsnap users.
Portsnap is a tool that used to obtain a copy of the ports tree.
Portsnap is only one way, another way to get a copy of the ports tree is by
using subversion and checking it out by using the svn
Sam Fourman Jr. wrote:
And for the portsnap users?
In short, this change doesn't directly effect portsnap users.
Sure about that?
Portsnap is a tool that used to obtain a copy of the ports tree.
try this:
portsnap fetch update cd /usr/ports/ports-mgmt/pkg make install
If you
On Tuesday, September 02, 2014 3:51:31 AM Michelle Sullivan wrote:
Sam Fourman Jr. wrote:
And for the portsnap users?
In short, this change doesn't directly effect portsnap users.
Sure about that?
Portsnap is a tool that used to obtain a copy of the ports tree.
try this:
On 2014.09.01 20:51, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
And for the portsnap users?
In short, this change doesn't directly effect portsnap users.
Sure about that?
I'm sure of it. Your issue is with the tree itself, not the tool used to fetch
it.
Correct, take a 9.2 install disk, install it,
On 9/1/14, 6:39 PM, Sam Fourman Jr. wrote:
And for the portsnap users?
In short, this change doesn't directly effect portsnap users.
Portsnap is a tool that used to obtain a copy of the ports tree.
Portsnap is only one way, another way to get a copy of the ports tree is by
using subversion
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 03:51:31AM +0200 I heard the voice of
Michelle Sullivan, and lo! it spake thus:
Correct, take a 9.2 install disk, install it, portsnap and then
install pkg on it... Oh wait, you can't.. pkg_install is broken,
and 9.2 install disks don't have pkg in the BaseOS
So
Andrew Berg wrote:
On 2014.09.01 20:51, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
And for the portsnap users?
In short, this change doesn't directly effect portsnap users.
Sure about that?
I'm sure of it. Your issue is with the tree itself, not the tool used to
fetch
On 9/1/14, 7:16 PM, Andrew Berg wrote:
On 2014.09.01 20:51, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
And for the portsnap users?
In short, this change doesn't directly effect portsnap users.
Sure about that?
I'm sure of it. Your issue is with the tree itself, not the tool used to fetch
it.
Julian Elischer wrote:
You should try arguing with someone like Bank of Americas security and
operations
department
You work for the same company as me?
some day about whether they want to suddenly upgrade 300 machines
for no real reason (from their perspective).
--
Michelle Sullivan
On 2014.09.01 21:39, Julian Elischer wrote:
sigh.. when are we as a project, all going to learn that reality in
business is
that you often need to install stuff that is old. Its not always your
choice.
The custommers require it..
You should try arguing with someone like Bank of Americas
On 2014.09.01 21:27, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
Actually it's an inconvenience for someone like me and you. Not for
many freebsd users, and certainly not for me 6 months ago if I hadn't
been writing my own ports oh and what was it, 1.3.6 - 1.3.7? broke
shit... (badly) ...
There were
Andrew Berg wrote:
On 2014.09.01 21:27, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
Actually it's an inconvenience for someone like me and you. Not for
many freebsd users, and certainly not for me 6 months ago if I hadn't
been writing my own ports oh and what was it, 1.3.6 - 1.3.7? broke
shit...
On Sep 1, 2014, at 20:02, Andrew Berg aberg...@my.hennepintech.edu wrote:
On 2014.09.01 21:27, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
Actually it's an inconvenience for someone like me and you. Not for
many freebsd users, and certainly not for me 6 months ago if I hadn't
been writing my own ports oh
On 2014.09.01 22:09, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
That's my point - there was a patch waiting to submit that knowingly
broke pkg_install at midnight on the day after the EOL... the EOL
shouldn't be an EOL - because it was really a 'portsnap after this date
before you upgrade and you're screwed it
Andrew Berg wrote:
On 2014.09.01 22:09, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
That's my point - there was a patch waiting to submit that knowingly
broke pkg_install at midnight on the day after the EOL... the EOL
shouldn't be an EOL - because it was really a 'portsnap after this date
before you
40 matches
Mail list logo
