Da= vid,
Sorry for top posting - my 'phone makes it difficult.
Do= we really have to have this debate again?
You made the same points = a short while ago, and there was a long
on-list debate about the strengths = and shortfalls of the existing
ports and packages system.
I
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:50 AM, tho...@sanbe-farma.com wrote:
Hmm what is the problem ? Is there a log or something that you can share ?
Usually portsnap, freebsd-update, pkg_add -r or portupgrade that do binary
update should be enough
Ive tried them all. I will work on getting some logs to
David, allow me to add a few thoughts:
On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 11:28:47 -0500, David Jackson wrote:
As for compile options, the solution is simple, compile in all feature
options and the most commonly used settings into the binary packages, for
the standard i386 CPU.
I think this can develop into
Hmm what is the problem ? Is there a log or something that you can share ?
Usually portsnap, freebsd-update, pkg_add -r or portupgrade that do binary
update should be enough
Regards
Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone from Sinyal Bagus XL, Nyambung Teruuusss...!
-Original Message-
From:
Many of your issues are non-issues, as your suggestions were
implemented in some form long ago. For example, updated applications
are compiled and available online. You can use pkg_add -r to
install the newest binary package that is available, or you can update
your an installed application
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 10:28 AM, David Jackson djackson...@gmail.com wrote:
I still have yet to find a resolution to the problems I have had with
binary packages and upgrades on FreeBSD. Binary upgrading is broken with
every tool I have tried.
There is no real reason why FreeBSD should not
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Polytropon free...@edvax.de wrote:
David, allow me to add a few thoughts:
On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 11:28:47 -0500, David Jackson wrote:
As for compile options, the solution is simple, compile in all feature
options and the most commonly used settings into the
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 12:42 PM, David Jackson djackson...@gmail.comwrote:
Especially on systems low on resources, compiling from
source is _the_ way to squeeze every required (!) bit
of performance out of code. Even if compiling may require
some time (due to optimization flags), the
I ran into problems with pkg-upgrade when I upgraded from
8.2p6-9.0-RELEASE, and part of the problem ended up being a tool
pkg_upgrade used (uma). That was the reason portupgrade didn't work as
well. I ended up hacking the support tool and pkg_upgrade to do what I
needed, but they are both
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Rob li...@midsummerdream.org wrote:
I ran into problems with pkg-upgrade when I upgraded from
8.2p6-9.0-RELEASE, and part of the problem ended up being a tool
pkg_upgrade used (uma). That was the reason portupgrade didn't work as
well. I ended up hacking the
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:42 AM, David Jackson djackson...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Polytropon free...@edvax.de wrote:
David, allow me to add a few thoughts:
On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 11:28:47 -0500, David Jackson wrote:
As for compile options, the solution is simple,
This is irrelevant. FreeBSD has these options because most of its
users are system administrators, developers or other types of geeks.
Serving these needs is a major part of what FreeBSD does. That's why
we have the long standing motto: FreeBSD - The power to serve.
People who don't want
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 12:56 PM, David Jackson djackson...@gmail.com wrote:
This is irrelevant. FreeBSD has these options because most of its
users are system administrators, developers or other types of geeks.
Serving these needs is a major part of what FreeBSD does. That's why
we have
On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 12:57:46PM -0500, David Jackson wrote:
So it seems like a happy compromise here. You will get what you need
and us newbies and other users who really dont want the extra
trouble of compiling will get our binaries. Everyone gets what they
want and is happy, it seems.
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Andrew Gould andrewlylego...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 12:56 PM, David Jackson djackson...@gmail.com
wrote:
This is irrelevant. FreeBSD has these options because most of its
users are system administrators, developers or other types of
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Benjamin Tovar b...@robotoloco.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 12:57:46PM -0500, David Jackson wrote:
So it seems like a happy compromise here. You will get what you need
and us newbies and other users who really dont want the extra
trouble of compiling will
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 3:20 PM, Andrew Gould andrewlylego...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Benjamin Tovar b...@robotoloco.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 12:57:46PM -0500, David Jackson wrote:
So it seems like a happy compromise here. You will get what you need
and
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Benjamin Tovar b...@robotoloco.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 12:57:46PM -0500, David Jackson wrote:
So it seems like a happy compromise here. You will get what you need
and us newbies and other users who really dont want the extra
trouble of compiling
On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 11:28:47 -0500
David Jackson wrote:
One faulty argument I heard was that it is often not a good idea to
upgrade to new software release.
This is an argument that you appear to have completely misunderstood.
The point of suggesting that you use release package is that it's a
On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 03:20:19PM -0500, David Jackson wrote:
I think that your statement here is fundamentally flawed and wrong, because
you have assumed that it is impossible for the OS to be able to be user
friendly and geek friendly at the same time. This is wrong. In fact, I have
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 10:56 AM, David Jackson djackson...@gmail.com wrote:
You have just now declared complete indifference to and alienated about 99%
of the potential user base and their needs, those who could care less about
compiling source and messing with compiler options.
Maybe FreeBSD
On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 12:42:52 -0500, David Jackson wrote:
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Polytropon free...@edvax.de wrote:
David, allow me to add a few thoughts:
On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 11:28:47 -0500, David Jackson wrote:
As for compile options, the solution is simple, compile in all
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 4:27 PM, David Brodbeck g...@gull.us wrote:
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 10:56 AM, David Jackson djackson...@gmail.com
wrote:
You have just now declared complete indifference to and alienated about
99%
of the potential user base and their needs, those who could care less
On 07/03/2012 18:56, David Jackson wrote:
You have just now declared complete indifference to and alienated about 99%
of the potential user base and their needs, those who could care less about
compiling source and messing with compiler options.
You're forgetting that one size does *not* fit
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Polytropon free...@edvax.de wrote:
On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 12:05:37 -0500, David Jackson wrote:
Many of your issues are non-issues, as your suggestions were
implemented in some form long ago. For example, updated applications
are compiled and available
On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 22:04:35 -0500, David Jackson wrote:
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Polytropon free...@edvax.de wrote:
On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 12:05:37 -0500, David Jackson wrote:
Many of your issues are non-issues, as your suggestions were
implemented in some form long ago. For
On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 10:04:35PM -0500, David Jackson wrote:
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Polytropon free...@edvax.de wrote:
On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 12:05:37 -0500, David Jackson wrote:
Many of your issues are non-issues, as your suggestions were
implemented in some form long ago.
On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 10:04:35PM -0500, David Jackson wrote:
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Polytropon free...@edvax.de wrote:
On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 12:05:37 -0500, David Jackson wrote:
Many of your issues are non-issues, as your suggestions were
implemented in some form long ago.
28 matches
Mail list logo
