On 04.06.2016 16:18, Matthew Seaman wrote:
On 04/06/2016 14:50, Grzegorz Junka wrote:
On 04/06/2016 13:45, Matthew Seaman wrote:
On 03/06/2016 17:23, Bob Eager wrote:
Why not just use odd numbered releases? That's what I do. They have a
longer support cycle.
Remember though that this model
On 06/ 3/16 08:17 AM, Franco Fichtner wrote:
> Hi there,
>
>> On 01 Jun 2016, at 2:12 PM, Miroslav Lachman <000.f...@quip.cz> wrote:
>>
>> There is a main difference - if you upgraded from 9.2 to 9.3, you don't need
>> to recompile (reinstall) all ports, but if you upgraded from 9.3 to 10.x you
On 06/ 3/16 08:17 AM, Franco Fichtner wrote:
> Hi there,
>
>> On 01 Jun 2016, at 2:12 PM, Miroslav Lachman <000.f...@quip.cz> wrote:
>>
>> There is a main difference - if you upgraded from 9.2 to 9.3, you don't need
>> to recompile (reinstall) all ports, but if you upgraded from 9.3 to 10.x you
On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 06:20:24PM +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> On 2016/06/04 16:14, William A. Mahaffey III wrote:
> > One point of order if I may: It was stated earlier in the thread that
> > binary compatibility throughout a major release cycle (X.n-R, as 'n'
> > varies) is a specification.
On 2016/06/04 16:14, William A. Mahaffey III wrote:
> One point of order if I may: It was stated earlier in the thread that
> binary compatibility throughout a major release cycle (X.n-R, as 'n'
> varies) is a specification. That is not explicitly addressed in the
> above URL's, as far as I can
On 06/04/16 09:24, Matthew Seaman wrote:
On 04/06/2016 14:50, Grzegorz Junka wrote:
On 04/06/2016 13:45, Matthew Seaman wrote:
On 03/06/2016 17:23, Bob Eager wrote:
Why not just use odd numbered releases? That's what I do. They have a
longer support cycle.
Remember though that this model is
On 04/06/2016 14:50, Grzegorz Junka wrote:
>
> On 04/06/2016 13:45, Matthew Seaman wrote:
>> On 03/06/2016 17:23, Bob Eager wrote:
>>> Why not just use odd numbered releases? That's what I do. They have a
>>> longer support cycle.
>> Remember though that this model is changing with 11.0 release.
On 04/06/2016 13:45, Matthew Seaman wrote:
On 03/06/2016 17:23, Bob Eager wrote:
Why not just use odd numbered releases? That's what I do. They have a
longer support cycle.
Remember though that this model is changing with 11.0 release. With the
new model, it's the 11.x family as a whole that
On 03/06/2016 17:23, Bob Eager wrote:
> Why not just use odd numbered releases? That's what I do. They have a
> longer support cycle.
Remember though that this model is changing with 11.0 release. With the
new model, it's the 11.x family as a whole that has the long term
support and individual
> On 03 Jun 2016, at 6:23 PM, Bob Eager wrote:
>
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 17:17:57 +0200
> Franco Fichtner wrote:
>
>> The initial release was 10.0, which was phased out after a
>> year, leaving us no choice but to go 10.1 just two months
>> after our
On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 17:17:57 +0200
Franco Fichtner wrote:
> The initial release was 10.0, which was phased out after a
> year, leaving us no choice but to go 10.1 just two months
> after our initial release in order to receive official security
> updates. Worst case it
On 03/06/2016 07:26, Matthew Seaman wrote:
On 02/06/2016 21:08, Grzegorz Junka wrote:
It's not fair to compare RedHat to FreeBSD. Companies pay good money to
maintain the support for the systems they are using. They don't pay
FreeBSD a penny. I think the real issue preventing a wider adoption
Hi there,
> On 01 Jun 2016, at 2:12 PM, Miroslav Lachman <000.f...@quip.cz> wrote:
>
> There is a main difference - if you upgraded from 9.2 to 9.3, you don't need
> to recompile (reinstall) all ports, but if you upgraded from 9.3 to 10.x you
> need to reinstall all your packages and then
On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 09:14:32 -0700 (PDT)
Roger Marquis wrote:
> > How about "freebsd-update fetch; freebsd-update install; reboot"?
>
> Tried that but didn't find it reliable.
In what way was it unreliable? Did you report your problems in
bugzilla, lists or forums?
> Have
On 02/06/2016 21:08, Grzegorz Junka wrote:
> It's not fair to compare RedHat to FreeBSD. Companies pay good money to
> maintain the support for the systems they are using. They don't pay
> FreeBSD a penny. I think the real issue preventing a wider adoption at
> companies is not that there is no
On 31/05/2016 13:59, Vincent Hoffman-Kazlauskas wrote:
On 31/05/2016 14:17, Torsten Zuehlsdorff wrote:
On 04.05.2016 19:17, Grzegorz Junka wrote:
LTS of the base system or ports? The base system is already quite well
supported long-term.
This is a very good question, because it is not
Having endured 'buildworld; buildkernel; nstallkernal; reboot' and
'installworld; mergemaster' over the past few weeks I can say without
exaggeration it is an order of magnitude more time consuming that
'yum update' or 'aptitude upgrade'.
How about "freebsd-update fetch; freebsd-update install;
On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 09:27:53 -0700 (PDT)
Roger Marquis wrote:
> Having endured 'buildworld; buildkernel; nstallkernal; reboot' and
> 'installworld; mergemaster' over the past few weeks I can say without
> exaggeration it is an order of magnitude more time consuming that
> 'yum
To be fair the support is last release + 2 years, supporting a minor
version for more than 2 years seems unreasonable, compare to say redhat
a major commercial vendor.
You can't really compare FreeBSD to a Redhat or Ubuntu LTS in this way
because ports generally continue to be upgradeable after
Torsten Zuehlsdorff wrote on 06/01/2016 11:07:
On 31.05.2016 15:59, Vincent Hoffman-Kazlauskas wrote:
[...]
To be fair the support is last release + 2 years, supporting a minor
version for more than 2 years seems unreasonable, compare to say redhat
a major commercial vendor.
If you want to
On 31.05.2016 15:59, Vincent Hoffman-Kazlauskas wrote:
What you cannot do is create old-style packages from a new ports
tree. This is because the ports infrastructure has been changing
since pkg_install was deprecated, and pkg_install simply will not
work with the current ports tree (and, as I
On 31/05/2016 14:17, Torsten Zuehlsdorff wrote:
> On 04.05.2016 19:17, Grzegorz Junka wrote:
>
> Please excuse my late answer. I was right into vacation and need to
> handle some work right afterwards.
>
What you cannot do is create old-style packages from a new ports
tree. This is
On 04.05.2016 19:17, Grzegorz Junka wrote:
Please excuse my late answer. I was right into vacation and need to
handle some work right afterwards.
What you cannot do is create old-style packages from a new ports
tree. This is because the ports infrastructure has been changing
since
Chris H wrote:
I mention all this, because depending on which revision you are
currently attempting to use, if it's at or before that revision, you
can simply diff (earlier) Mk/ against newer revisions. Noting the
changes, and compensating accordingly. This is, of course, a PITA.
But depending
On Wed, 4 May 2016 00:03:41 -0700 Greg Byshenk wrote
> On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 01:44:29PM +0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
> > On 3/05/2016 2:31 PM, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
> > > +--On 3 mai 2016 12:02:13 +0800 Julian Elischer
> > > wrote: | On 2/05/2016 8:39
What you cannot do is create old-style packages from a new ports
tree. This is because the ports infrastructure has been changing
since pkg_install was deprecated, and pkg_install simply will not
work with the current ports tree (and, as I understand it, cannot
practically be modified in order
On 04.05.2016 09:03, Greg Byshenk wrote:
On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 01:44:29PM +0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 3/05/2016 2:31 PM, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
+--On 3 mai 2016 12:02:13 +0800 Julian Elischer wrote:
| On 2/05/2016 8:39 PM, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
|> There is a
On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 01:44:29PM +0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
> On 3/05/2016 2:31 PM, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
> > +--On 3 mai 2016 12:02:13 +0800 Julian Elischer wrote:
> > | On 2/05/2016 8:39 PM, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
> > |> There is a tag,
On 4/05/2016 1:54 AM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 11:31 PM, Mathieu Arnold > wrote:
+--On 3 mai 2016 12:02:13 +0800 Julian Elischer
> wrote:
| On 2/05/2016 8:39 PM, Mathieu
On 3/05/2016 2:31 PM, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
+--On 3 mai 2016 12:02:13 +0800 Julian Elischer wrote:
| On 2/05/2016 8:39 PM, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
|> +--On 2 mai 2016 18:39:57 +0800 Julian Elischer
|> wrote:
|> | Hi guys,
|> |
|> | ok so I see:
|> |
|> |
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 11:31 PM, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
>
>
> +--On 3 mai 2016 12:02:13 +0800 Julian Elischer
> wrote:
> | On 2/05/2016 8:39 PM, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
> |> +--On 2 mai 2016 18:39:57 +0800 Julian Elischer
> |> wrote:
> |>
+--On 3 mai 2016 12:02:13 +0800 Julian Elischer wrote:
| On 2/05/2016 8:39 PM, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
|> +--On 2 mai 2016 18:39:57 +0800 Julian Elischer
|> wrote:
|> | Hi guys,
|> |
|> | ok so I see:
|> |
|> | 2014-04-30 ports-mgmt/pkg_install:
On 2/05/2016 8:39 PM, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
+--On 2 mai 2016 18:39:57 +0800 Julian Elischer wrote:
| Hi guys,
|
| ok so I see:
|
| 2014-04-30 ports-mgmt/pkg_install: Replaced by ports-mgmt/pkg
|
|
| So now how do enterprises maintaining appliances etc. generate packages
|
+--On 2 mai 2016 18:39:57 +0800 Julian Elischer wrote:
| Hi guys,
|
| ok so I see:
|
| 2014-04-30 ports-mgmt/pkg_install: Replaced by ports-mgmt/pkg
|
|
| So now how do enterprises maintaining appliances etc. generate packages
| for old systems?
There is a tag,
Hi guys,
ok so I see:
2014-04-30 ports-mgmt/pkg_install: Replaced by ports-mgmt/pkg
So now how do enterprises maintaining appliances etc. generate packages for old
systems?
(yeah I know about chroot/jails etc.) but we have it embedded into several
workflows
that deliver stuff that is not
35 matches
Mail list logo