Re: Free BSD 8.1
Mike Clarke jmc-freeb...@milibyte.co.uk wrote: On Monday 27 September 2010, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote: I've recently started on a new system, and am planning to install 8.1-RELEASE, including the corresponding ports tree; then install what ports I can from packages and also fetch the corresponding distfiles; and finally build -- from release- corresponding ports -- any that aren't available as packages or where I want non-default OPTION settings. That approach should avoid most nasty surprises while getting things set up and working. _After_ everything is installed and configured properly will be plenty soon enough to consider whether any ports need to be updated -- and the already-installed-and- working package collection will provide a fallback in case of trouble trying to build any updated versions. The problem is if/when you need to update a port as a result of a security advisory. If your ports tree is very much out of date then it's likely that updating that one port will require a number of dependencies to be updated as well, sometimes all the ports depending on one or more of the updated dependencies need to be updated as well and the resultant bag of worms can take quite a lot of sorting out. The little and often approach of keeping the ports tree up to date could be less traumatic. and, in this context, your point is? I'm advocating starting from a stable and self-consistent baseline, consisting of a release _and_ its corresponding port/package collection, and then considering whether any updates are needed. Isn't that orthogonal to the question of whether or not to follow ports updates, once the baseline has been established? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Free BSD 8.1
On Sep 28, 2010, at 2:02 AM, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote: Mike Clarke jmc-freeb...@milibyte.co.uk wrote: On Monday 27 September 2010, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote: I've recently started on a new system, and am planning to install 8.1-RELEASE, including the corresponding ports tree; then install what ports I can from packages and also fetch the corresponding distfiles; and finally build -- from release- corresponding ports -- any that aren't available as packages or where I want non-default OPTION settings. That approach should avoid most nasty surprises while getting things set up and working. _After_ everything is installed and configured properly will be plenty soon enough to consider whether any ports need to be updated -- and the already-installed-and- working package collection will provide a fallback in case of trouble trying to build any updated versions. The problem is if/when you need to update a port as a result of a security advisory. If your ports tree is very much out of date then it's likely that updating that one port will require a number of dependencies to be updated as well, sometimes all the ports depending on one or more of the updated dependencies need to be updated as well and the resultant bag of worms can take quite a lot of sorting out. The little and often approach of keeping the ports tree up to date could be less traumatic. and, in this context, your point is? I'm advocating starting from a stable and self-consistent baseline, consisting of a release _and_ its corresponding port/package collection, and then considering whether any updates are needed. Isn't that orthogonal to the question of whether or not to follow ports updates, once the baseline has been established? As I understand it: The OS itself is stable, but the ports are constantly in flux and may be issues. Please correct me if I am wrong. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Free BSD 8.1
On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 02:24:26 -0500, Ryan Coleman ryan.cole...@cwis.biz wrote: As I understand it: The OS itself is stable, but the ports are constantly in flux and may be issues. Not exactly. It depends on which update road you follow. Say, you use freebsd-update (the binary update), or use c(v)sup to track -RELEASE (including the security patches), your OS is stable. Certain points in time can be addressed by a specific patch level, e. g. -RELEASE-p1 for the first one, -RELEASE-p2 for the second one, and so on. If you track -STABLE by using c(v)sup (doesn't work with the binary freebsd-update!), your OS is also stable. There is no further versioning as with the patch levels; the date decides. As you can't binary upgrade here, compiling yourself is needed. But if you track -CURRENT (means -HEAD), it *might* be that the OS won't even compile, or runs unstable. This is due to the fact that *this* branch does sometimes include experimental changes or features that are tested, and maybe removed later on. It's obvious that you need to retrieve the sources and compile your- self in this case, too. Ports, on the other hand, are not related to the OS version. If you use -RELEASE for example, you can, if it fits your needs, stay with the default ports tree that has been issued the same time the release came out. This is the state you'll find on the installation media. You can also use the precompiled packages. If you decide to upgrade your ports tree because you need newer versions or specific features, it *may* be possible that a certain point in time of -RELEASE is not sufficient, and this might force you to change your road to follow -STABLE. This can either be the case by installing from an updated ports tree or from Latest/ packages (instead of RELEASE one's). Summary: -RELEASE and -STABLE are stable, -CURRENT or -HEAD do not neccessarily have to be. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Free BSD 8.1
Polytropon said: If you decide to upgrade your ports tree because you need newer versions or specific features, it *may* be possible that a certain point in time of -RELEASE is not sufficient, and this might force you to change your road to follow -STABLE. This can either be the case by installing from an updated ports tree or from Latest/ packages (instead of RELEASE one's). An other option is to download a specific port from (*) http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/ and compiling it independently of the ports tree. In many cases it works perfectly OK and avoids to upgrade the ports tree itself and the destabilization which ensues. Of course you can also upgrade frequently the ports tree and run frequently portupgrade or portmaster, if you like tinkering with your machine. (*) in any given port you will find Download this directory in tarball -- Michel TALON ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Free BSD 8.1
per...@pluto.rain.com wrote: I'm advocating starting from a stable and self-consistent baseline, consisting of a release _and_ its corresponding port/package collection, and then considering whether any updates are needed. You might be interested to follow Manolis' custom DVD which is based on exactly that principle: http://freebsd-custom.wikidot.com Chris Isn't that orthogonal to the question of whether or not to follow ports updates, once the baseline has been established? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Free BSD 8.1
On Tue, 28 Sep 2010, Ryan Coleman wrote: As I understand it: The OS itself is stable, but the ports are constantly in flux and may be issues. During a FreeBSD release, the ports tree is frozen and port updates are delayed. So a FreeBSD release really does come with with a somewhat stale and stable set of ports... which is immediately followed by a flurry of port updates as the ports tree is unfrozen. Often these updates include major applications like xorg, with time-consuming upgrade procedures. The snapshot of ports on a -release grows increasingly stale. After a while, it's easier to update the ports tree before installing anything. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Free BSD 8.1
In freebsd-questions Digest, Vol 330, Issue 2, Message: 22 On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 00:02:29 -0700 per...@pluto.rain.com wrote: Mike Clarke jmc-freeb...@milibyte.co.uk wrote: On Monday 27 September 2010, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote: I've recently started on a new system, and am planning to install 8.1-RELEASE, including the corresponding ports tree; then install what ports I can from packages and also fetch the corresponding distfiles; and finally build -- from release- corresponding ports -- any that aren't available as packages or where I want non-default OPTION settings. That approach should avoid most nasty surprises while getting things set up and working. _After_ everything is installed and configured properly will be plenty soon enough to consider whether any ports need to be updated -- and the already-installed-and- working package collection will provide a fallback in case of trouble trying to build any updated versions. The problem is if/when you need to update a port as a result of a security advisory. If your ports tree is very much out of date then it's likely that updating that one port will require a number of dependencies to be updated as well, sometimes all the ports depending on one or more of the updated dependencies need to be updated as well and the resultant bag of worms can take quite a lot of sorting out. The little and often approach of keeping the ports tree up to date could be less traumatic. and, in this context, your point is? I'm advocating starting from a stable and self-consistent baseline, consisting of a release _and_ its corresponding port/package collection, and then considering whether any updates are needed. Isn't that orthogonal to the question of whether or not to follow ports updates, once the baseline has been established? Makes sense to me. There's been a ports freeze and extra attention to consistency of dependencies leading up to a -RELEASE, so there's a much better chance of all your ports working together from the outset, then you can update them at leisure while still getting on with some work! That there's also a self-consistent complete set of packages at that point seems lost on some folks having good enough bandwidth and fast enough systems to never need bothering with packages. I agree with Mike about the worms :) I have an 8.0-RELEASE system with many ports installed and quite a few configured to taste with a recently upgraded 8-STABLE world, working through a huge portversion update list, started by fetching over 900MB of packages so far including X and KDE by portupgrade -aFPP. It's going to take a while, and I'll be surprised if I don't skin a few knuckles on circular dependencies along the way. cheers, Ian ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Free BSD 8.1
On Tuesday 28 September 2010, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote: Mike Clarke jmc-freeb...@milibyte.co.uk wrote: [snip] The problem is if/when you need to update a port as a result of a security advisory. If your ports tree is very much out of date then it's likely that updating that one port will require a number of dependencies to be updated as well, sometimes all the ports depending on one or more of the updated dependencies need to be updated as well and the resultant bag of worms can take quite a lot of sorting out. The little and often approach of keeping the ports tree up to date could be less traumatic. and, in this context, your point is? I'm advocating starting from a stable and self-consistent baseline, consisting of a release _and_ its corresponding port/package collection, and then considering whether any updates are needed. Isn't that orthogonal to the question of whether or not to follow ports updates, once the baseline has been established? ___ Well I'd normally happy to stay with the original release state without having to have the latest greatest version of each application but I prefer to update any ports which have been flagged by portaudit as having security vulnerabilities and this is when the problem could arise. Updating a single port in isolation without updating the ports tree can lead to problems with dependencies so you invariably need to update your ports tree and update the dependencies for the port in question. If, for example, you were to build a web server by installing 8.1-RELEASE and the matching package for apache you would have apache-2.2.15_9 which suffers from a remote DoS bug and should be upgraded to 2.2.16 http://www.vuxml.org/freebsd/CVE-2010-1452.html. As Warren Block has pointed out elsewhere in this thread there's usually a flurry of port updates when the ports tree is unfrozen just after a release so if you now update the ports tree and upgrade your ports there could be a large number of ports to upgrade, most of them can be upgraded quite painlessly with portmaster or portupgrade but you'd need to check /usr/ports/UPDATING to see if any of them needed special attention, fixing a single special case is usually quite straightforward but things sometimes get more complex when there's several. If on the other hand you installed the base system, updated your ports tree and then built what you needed from ports (or the latest packages) you'd get the latest versions without having to sort out any conflicts. If you wait a long time before a new vulnerability pushes you into doing your next upgrade then you'll still probably have quite a lot to sort out but updating small numbers of ports more frequently usually involves less work than an occasional mega upgrade. Well, that's just my 2 cents worth and it does depend on how many ports you have. A minimal server setup with few ports will probably not need very frequent port upgrades but something like a desktop could easily have 700 or more ports and it can be quite messy to upgrade your ports if it's been a long time since the last upgrade. -- Mike Clarke ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Free BSD 8.1
On Tuesday 28 September 2010, Ian Smith wrote: I agree with Mike about the worms :) I have an 8.0-RELEASE system with many ports installed and quite a few configured to taste with a recently upgraded 8-STABLE world, working through a huge portversion update list, started by fetching over 900MB of packages so far including X and KDE by portupgrade -aFPP. It's going to take a while, and I'll be surprised if I don't skin a few knuckles on circular dependencies along the way. I used to use packages in preference to ports but, being on a PAYG broadband account rather than unlimited, I'm more concerned about bandwidth than compile time. I found that upgrading ports often involved just a few packages which had actually been changed while the rest just had their version number bumped as a result of dependencies but still needed the entire package to be downloaded. Switching to building the ports instead means that I usually only need to download a relatively small number of distfiles with the remaining ports being recompiled from my existing collection of distfiles using the new makefiles in the updated ports tree. -- Mike Clarke ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Free BSD 8.1
Mouse works in text mode in root and personal directories. Does not work in KDE graphics after startx is typed in personal directory. Graphics comes up normally. Using a ps2 mouse. Any suggestions? Regards, victor ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Free BSD 8.1
On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 21:20:49 -0400, victor kovacs slowp...@pathcom.com wrote: Mouse works in text mode in root and personal directories. Does not work in KDE graphics after startx is typed in personal directory. Graphics comes up normally. Using a ps2 mouse. Any suggestions? Check the mail archives related to using X with or without HAL and DBUS (depends on the setting you are using). When your mouse works in text mode, moused has correctly picked it up, so the problem seems to be on X's side. Check X configuration file /etc/X11/xorg.conf if you have any. Check your HAL and DBUS stuff. a) Want to use HAL and DBUS? Enable them in /etc/rc.conf b) Do not want to use HAL and DBUS? Modify xorg.conf's AutoAddDevice setting. You'll find more information about this in the mailing list archives and the FreeBSD handbook. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Free BSD 8.1
Matthew Seaman m.sea...@infracaninophile.co.uk wrote: On 26/09/2010 13:30:19, Michel Talon wrote: Matthew Seaman said Be aware that installing the ports tree from the DVD images is not the ideal way to do it ... it is better to ... grab an up-to-date copy of the ports directly from the net. I disagree with that ... Another option is to install the ports tree from the DVD,and install corresponding precompiled packages ... and *not* updating the ports tree ... I suspect the best results can be had from an approach in between these; details below. ... being up-to-date with the ports tree generally *does* give you better results than not. Ports are a moving target, dependent entirely on upstream changes. This last is an oversimplification. Not all ports even _have_ an upstream, and those that do (granted, the great majority) depend not only on upstream changes but also on the maintainer's and committers' ability to keep up with those changes. Expecting that a snapshot taken months or weeks ago will work just as well as one updated in the last hour is plain daft ... ported software generally does improve over time. Updates that fix problems are way more common that updates that introduce them ... Couldn't this as well be said of FreeBSD itself? If it were universally accepted, there would be no need for the stable or security branches and the considerable effort that goes into maintaining them: everyone would just run -CURRENT. One _huge_ advantage of starting with a release _and its corresponding set of ports packages_ is that everything is self-consistent. This tends not to be true of snapshots taken between releases, if only because no one has time to do that much release engineering for every update of every port. I tried to follow the OP's approach a few years ago, and got burned rather badly. By the time I had the system working well enough to start on the project I had intended to work on, the time budgeted for the setup _and_ the work had been almost entirely consumed in setup! I get the impression that M. Talon may have had similar experiences. I've recently started on a new system, and am planning to install 8.1-RELEASE, including the corresponding ports tree; then install what ports I can from packages and also fetch the corresponding distfiles; and finally build -- from release-corresponding ports -- any that aren't available as packages or where I want non-default OPTION settings. That approach should avoid most nasty surprises while getting things set up and working. _After_ everything is installed and configured properly will be plenty soon enough to consider whether any ports need to be updated -- and the already- installed-and-working package collection will provide a fallback in case of trouble trying to build any updated versions. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Free BSD 8.1
On Monday 27 September 2010, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote: I've recently started on a new system, and am planning to install 8.1-RELEASE, including the corresponding ports tree; then install what ports I can from packages and also fetch the corresponding distfiles; and finally build -- from release-corresponding ports -- any that aren't available as packages or where I want non-default OPTION settings. That approach should avoid most nasty surprises while getting things set up and working. _After_ everything is installed and configured properly will be plenty soon enough to consider whether any ports need to be updated -- and the already- installed-and-working package collection will provide a fallback in case of trouble trying to build any updated versions. The problem is if/when you need to update a port as a result of a security advisory. If your ports tree is very much out of date then it's likely that updating that one port will require a number of dependencies to be updated as well, sometimes all the ports depending on one or more of the updated dependencies need to be updated as well and the resultant bag of worms can take quite a lot of sorting out. The little and often approach of keeping the ports tree up to date could be less traumatic. -- Mike Clarke ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Free BSD 8.1
Quoth Mike Clarke on Monday, 27 September 2010: On Monday 27 September 2010, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote: I've recently started on a new system, and am planning to install 8.1-RELEASE, including the corresponding ports tree; then install what ports I can from packages and also fetch the corresponding distfiles; and finally build -- from release-corresponding ports -- any that aren't available as packages or where I want non-default OPTION settings. That approach should avoid most nasty surprises while getting things set up and working. _After_ everything is installed and configured properly will be plenty soon enough to consider whether any ports need to be updated -- and the already- installed-and-working package collection will provide a fallback in case of trouble trying to build any updated versions. The problem is if/when you need to update a port as a result of a security advisory. If your ports tree is very much out of date then it's likely that updating that one port will require a number of dependencies to be updated as well, sometimes all the ports depending on one or more of the updated dependencies need to be updated as well and the resultant bag of worms can take quite a lot of sorting out. The little and often approach of keeping the ports tree up to date could be less traumatic. -- Mike Clarke That's the maxim under which I operate. Furthermore, if something does break, it's a lot easier to narrow down what broke it if you updated one or two ports instead of twenty or thirty. I use the same principle in following STABLE -- frequently update/build so if anything goes wrong, the number of culpable commits is small. -- Sterling (Chip) Camden| sterl...@camdensoftware.com | 2048D/3A978E4F http://camdensoftware.com | http://chipstips.com| http://chipsquips.com pgpYFGtRRPCCb.pgp Description: PGP signature
Free BSD 8.1
It appears that all the distfile locations are empty. For example: KDE4 Master site: empty Distfiles: none Extract-only: empty Have the distfiles for the GUI been left out of the dvd? Same situation when 32 or 64 side of dvd is loaded. The dvd disk reader is read only. It cannot write to disk. Please advise Victor ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Free BSD 8.1
On 26/09/2010 02:50:55, victor kovacs wrote: It appears that all the distfile locations are empty. For example: KDE4 Master site: empty Distfiles: none Extract-only: empty That's deliberate. x11/kde4 is a metaport -- that is, it installs nothing itself, but exists only to hold dependencies on other KDE4 components. Installing x11/kde4 will trigger a cascading installation of the 20-odd other ports (as modified by your choice of options) that go to create a whole KDE system. Have the distfiles for the GUI been left out of the dvd? Same situation when 32 or 64 side of dvd is loaded. The dvd disk reader is read only. It cannot write to disk. No -- the tarball of the ports in the distribution media is a faithful copy of the state of the ports tree at the time the media were created. Distfiles aren't included in FreeBSD DVD images -- there's only about 4.5GB to play with, and most of that is taken up by FreeBSD itself, and a selection of the most important software pre-compiled in pkg format. All of the distfiles or all of the pkgs for all of the ports together are substantially larger than any single piece of distribution medium (disk, USB key, etc.) readily available at the moment. Even just selecting the most commonly installed applications easily overflows the capacity of the DVD (and consider what invidious choices that selection process involves). Be aware that installing the ports tree from the DVD images is not the ideal way to do it. If you have the connectivity on your newly installed system, it is better to use either csup(1) or portsnap(1) to grab an up-to-date copy of the ports directly from the net. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate JID: matt...@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Free BSD 8.1
Matthew Seaman said Be aware that installing the ports tree from the DVD images is not the ideal way to do it. If you have the connectivity on your newly installed system, it is better to use either csup(1) or portsnap(1) to grab an up-to-date copy of the ports directly from the net. I disagree with that. You are supposing that newer is better, which is far from proven (in fact blatantly false in many cases). Another option is to install the ports tree from the DVD,and install corresponding precompiled packages from the DVD or otherwise the web, and *not* updating the ports tree. There is a lot to be said for this option, and many users will be happier doing that, at least people who want to use their machine and not spend their time upgrading, compiling and fighting bugs. -- Michel TALON ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Free BSD 8.1
On 26/09/2010 13:30:19, Michel Talon wrote: Matthew Seaman said Be aware that installing the ports tree from the DVD images is not the ideal way to do it. If you have the connectivity on your newly installed system, it is better to use either csup(1) or portsnap(1) to grab an up-to-date copy of the ports directly from the net. I disagree with that. You are supposing that newer is better, which is far from proven (in fact blatantly false in many cases). Another option is to install the ports tree from the DVD,and install corresponding precompiled packages from the DVD or otherwise the web, and *not* updating the ports tree. There is a lot to be said for this option, and many users will be happier doing that, at least people who want to use their machine and not spend their time upgrading, compiling and fighting bugs. No. I made no comment on the relative advantages and disadvantages of various updating strategies. Please do not put words into my mouth. Given that the OP asked about the ports I think it fairly safe to assume that his intention was to use them. And, yes, being up-to-date with the ports tree generally *does* give you better results than not. Ports are a moving target, dependent entirely on upstream changes. Expecting that a snapshot taken months or weeks ago will work just as well as one updated in the last hour is plain daft. Even without any functional changes to the ported software, projects still move to different hosting, URLs change as archive sites are internally reorganised, ftp servers come and go, dist files get re-rolled with new checksums. Aside from those neutral changes, ported software generally does improve over time. Updates that fix problems are way more common that updates that introduce them. Despite a few high-profile occasions when things have gone horribly wrong -- not just with the ports, but with any OSS project --- this is overwhelmingly the case. The quality control in the majority of large OSS projects is very good nowadays -- probably better than their closed source equivalents. End users can quite reasonably expect not to have to spend their time fighting bugs. Newer generally /is/ better. Besides that, the assumption you are making, that change is undesirable, is just plain wrong. People will always want new stuff. It may not be wise for them to get it, but that's another story. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate JID: matt...@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
