Re: old ports/packages

2016-06-08 Thread Torsten Zühlsdorff
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

Re: old ports/packages

2016-06-04 Thread Jeffrey Bouquet via freebsd-ports
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

Re: old ports/packages

2016-06-04 Thread Jeffrey Bouquet via freebsd-ports
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

Re: old ports/packages

2016-06-04 Thread Konstantin Belousov
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.

Re: old ports/packages

2016-06-04 Thread Matthew Seaman
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

Re: old ports/packages

2016-06-04 Thread William A. Mahaffey III
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

Re: old ports/packages

2016-06-04 Thread Matthew Seaman
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.

Re: old ports/packages

2016-06-04 Thread Grzegorz Junka
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

Re: old ports/packages

2016-06-04 Thread Matthew Seaman
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

Re: old ports/packages

2016-06-03 Thread Franco Fichtner
> 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

Re: old ports/packages

2016-06-03 Thread Bob Eager
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

Re: old ports/packages

2016-06-03 Thread Grzegorz Junka
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

Re: old ports/packages

2016-06-03 Thread Franco Fichtner
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

Re: old ports/packages

2016-06-03 Thread Marko Cupać
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

Re: old ports/packages

2016-06-03 Thread Matthew Seaman
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

Re: old ports/packages

2016-06-02 Thread Grzegorz Junka
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

Re: old ports/packages

2016-06-02 Thread Roger Marquis
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;

Re: old ports/packages

2016-06-02 Thread Marko Cupać
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

Re: old ports/packages

2016-06-01 Thread Roger Marquis
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

Re: old ports/packages

2016-06-01 Thread Miroslav Lachman
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

Re: old ports/packages

2016-06-01 Thread Torsten Zuehlsdorff
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

Re: old ports/packages

2016-05-31 Thread Vincent Hoffman-Kazlauskas
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

Re: old ports/packages

2016-05-31 Thread Torsten Zuehlsdorff
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

Re: old ports/packages

2016-05-04 Thread Michelle Sullivan
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

Re: old ports/packages

2016-05-04 Thread Chris H
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

Re: old ports/packages

2016-05-04 Thread Grzegorz Junka
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

Re: old ports/packages

2016-05-04 Thread Torsten Zuehlsdorff
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

Re: old ports/packages

2016-05-04 Thread Greg Byshenk
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,

Re: old ports/packages

2016-05-04 Thread Julian Elischer
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

Re: old ports/packages

2016-05-03 Thread Julian Elischer
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: |> | |> |

Re: old ports/packages

2016-05-03 Thread Kevin Oberman
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: > |>

Re: old ports/packages

2016-05-03 Thread Mathieu Arnold
+--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:

Re: old ports/packages

2016-05-02 Thread Julian Elischer
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 |

Re: old ports/packages

2016-05-02 Thread Mathieu Arnold
+--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,

old ports/packages

2016-05-02 Thread Julian Elischer
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