Re: Upgrade suggestion
On Mar 26, 2007, at 4:40 PM, Gary Kline wrote: Hi Folks, Last night it struck me that one reason I constantly find new ports to upgrade is that with ~17K ports, if you're running one of the more common desktop managers and several popular apps, there are going to be at least a dozen minor tweaks every day. Possibly, for a very busy program with multiple authors actively making changes. Normally, projects accumulate such changes and only release point version updates perhaps every month or so, and most have updates available much less often than that. E.g.:going from foo-1.6.7_2 to foo-1.6.7_3. Portrevision bumps commonly happen when an underlying dependency changes; you generally don't get any changes to foo itself, unless the program version itself changes. I used to run port[upgrade|manager] twice/week. Was swamped; recently, upgrading things daily. Since a lot of the wm ports take 24 hours to build/re-build, I'm pretty much wedged. Thus this suggestion (for all port/package upgrade suites): have a flag, say 'u' for urgent when *foo* goes from foo-1.6.7 to -1.6.8 or else when/if foo makes a critical fix. There's an easier way: you can probably wait to rebuild ports until you see something listed in portaudit's output, or you know you want to update something being actively used to a specific known version that you need. I Would've loved to have joined into the Coding ``love-in'' this coming summer, but my shoulder said, ARE YOU AN IDIOT! so not now. Besides, other tasks await. Flames to /dev/null,guys; rational responses see-vous-play. gary Still trying to learn French :-) Donnez-moi tout mais le temps... -- Napoleon -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Upgrade suggestion
On 26/03/07, Chuck Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 26, 2007, at 4:40 PM, Gary Kline wrote: Hi Folks, Last night it struck me that one reason I constantly find new ports to upgrade is that with ~17K ports, if you're running one of the more common desktop managers and several popular apps, there are going to be at least a dozen minor tweaks every day. Possibly, for a very busy program with multiple authors actively making changes. Normally, projects accumulate such changes and only release point version updates perhaps every month or so, and most have updates available much less often than that. E.g.:going from foo-1.6.7_2 to foo-1.6.7_3. Portrevision bumps commonly happen when an underlying dependency changes; you generally don't get any changes to foo itself, unless the program version itself changes. I used to run port[upgrade|manager] twice/week. Was swamped; recently, upgrading things daily. Since a lot of the wm ports take 24 hours to build/re-build, I'm pretty much wedged. Thus this suggestion (for all port/package upgrade suites): have a flag, say 'u' for urgent when *foo* goes from foo-1.6.7 to -1.6.8 or else when/if foo makes a critical fix. There's an easier way: you can probably wait to rebuild ports until you see something listed in portaudit's output, or you know you want to update something being actively used to a specific known version that you need. Of course, Gentoo's portage system does all of this. Of course, Gentoo's portage system is a complete labyrinth of configuration files scattered over countless myriads (10^4) of subdirectories so that running a mixture of Holy-and-Blessed Versions and testing versions becomes a lovely game of tag combined with memory and $10,000 Pyramid, only fewer bleached-white teeth. I think the addition of portaudit for such a huge (~17K ports!) collection (and a much less strenuous upgrade cycle) is an excellent idea. -- -- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Upgrade suggestion
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 26/03/07, Chuck Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 26, 2007, at 4:40 PM, Gary Kline wrote: Hi Folks, Last night it struck me that one reason I constantly find new ports to upgrade is that with ~17K ports, if you're running one of the more common desktop managers and several popular apps, there are going to be at least a dozen minor tweaks every day. Possibly, for a very busy program with multiple authors actively making changes. Normally, projects accumulate such changes and only release point version updates perhaps every month or so, and most have updates available much less often than that. E.g.:going from foo-1.6.7_2 to foo-1.6.7_3. Portrevision bumps commonly happen when an underlying dependency changes; you generally don't get any changes to foo itself, unless the program version itself changes. I used to run port[upgrade|manager] twice/week. Was swamped; recently, upgrading things daily. Since a lot of the wm ports take 24 hours to build/re-build, I'm pretty much wedged. Thus this suggestion (for all port/package upgrade suites): have a flag, say 'u' for urgent when *foo* goes from foo-1.6.7 to -1.6.8 or else when/if foo makes a critical fix. There's an easier way: you can probably wait to rebuild ports until you see something listed in portaudit's output, or you know you want to update something being actively used to a specific known version that you need. Of course, Gentoo's portage system does all of this. Of course, Gentoo's portage system is a complete labyrinth of configuration files scattered over countless myriads (10^4) of subdirectories so that running a mixture of Holy-and-Blessed Versions and testing versions becomes a lovely game of tag combined with memory and $10,000 Pyramid, only fewer bleached-white teeth. I think the addition of portaudit for such a huge (~17K ports!) collection (and a much less strenuous upgrade cycle) is an excellent idea. -- -- Gentoo is a pain, but it's the only thing I can really run (stable-y) on my Core 2 Duo box right now (desktop). Not ready to go straight to -CURRENT on a desktop, quite yet.. I'll give it 6.2-RELEASE shot in a week. But anyhow, I do really like ports more, for all of its quirks.. it truly is a better (simpler) system to deal with, and as long as some of the stuff under the hood gets fixed soon, the better. Oh, but you shouldn't really have to worry about upgrading stuff all the time Gary. There's no point in upgrading packages daily -- I used to do that in Gentoo and all it did was waste precious CPU cycles and reduce the life of my hard disk. Upgrades once to twice a week do just fine for many systems (unless you're purposely running LINT for the entire ports collection -- which doesn't exist quite yet :)..). -Garrett ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Upgrade suggestion
On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 04:55:56PM -0700, Chuck Swiger wrote: On Mar 26, 2007, at 4:40 PM, Gary Kline wrote: Hi Folks, Last night it struck me that one reason I constantly find new ports to upgrade is that with ~17K ports, if you're running one of the more common desktop managers and several popular apps, there are going to be at least a dozen minor tweaks every day. Possibly, for a very busy program with multiple authors actively making changes. Normally, projects accumulate such changes and only release point version updates perhaps every month or so, and most have updates available much less often than that. E.g.:going from foo-1.6.7_2 to foo-1.6.7_3. Portrevision bumps commonly happen when an underlying dependency changes; you generally don't get any changes to foo itself, unless the program version itself changes. Mm-k. I'm guessing that gettext was a good example. That was one thing tht urged me on with being such a fanatic about keeping _everything_ current.Over the years of doing mostly OS version upgrades I got lazy. Things are really ok now... There really are some bad jerks out there, but I'm locked down preet tight. (Maybe it's time to relax a wee bit:) I used to run port[upgrade|manager] twice/week. Was swamped; recently, upgrading things daily. Since a lot of the wm ports take 24 hours to build/re-build, I'm pretty much wedged. Thus this suggestion (for all port/package upgrade suites): have a flag, say 'u' for urgent when *foo* goes from foo-1.6.7 to -1.6.8 or else when/if foo makes a critical fix. There's an easier way: you can probably wait to rebuild ports until you see something listed in portaudit's output, or you know you want to update something being actively used to a specific known version that you need. Good point. gary I Would've loved to have joined into the Coding ``love-in'' this coming summer, but my shoulder said, ARE YOU AN IDIOT! so not now. Besides, other tasks await. Flames to /dev/null,guys; rational responses see-vous-play. gary Still trying to learn French :-) Donnez-moi tout mais le temps... -- Napoleon -- -Chuck -- Gary Kline [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.thought.org Public Service Unix ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Upgrade suggestion
On Tuesday 27 March 2007 01:40:40 Gary Kline wrote: Hi Folks, Last night it struck me that one reason I constantly find new ports to upgrade is that with ~17K ports, if you're running one of the more common desktop managers and several popular apps, there are going to be at least a dozen minor tweaks every day. E.g.:going from foo-1.6.7_2 to foo-1.6.7_3. I used to run port[upgrade|manager] twice/week. Was swamped; recently, upgrading things daily. Since a lot of the wm ports take 24 hours to build/re-build, I'm pretty much wedged. Thus But you don't *have* to rebuild all the time. I'd wager to say that it's foolish to do so. When you have, e.g. a nice open-office, compiled with, say, the KDE option, there's no immediate need to update the beast if it happens to be updated. Maybe if it's a security fix, but otherwise if the thing works well for you, no need to update. Unless you want to of course. I do a massive portupgrade every 1-2 months on my desktop and I don't feel I'm missing out (and if I do I'll do that update earlier). And yes, usually there's a thing or two that I have to fix manually. It will happen also if you csup-through-cron every day. Perhaps more often. I think you're trying to overdo whilst still trying to minimize build time (= stability shall we say) and such. They're two conflicting goals. this suggestion (for all port/package upgrade suites): have a flag, say 'u' for urgent when *foo* goes from foo-1.6.7 to -1.6.8 or else when/if foo makes a critical fix. We have more than one port update tools (and they do somewhat different things), that would complicate things a lot I think (what color is yer bikeshed), and such a thing would probably need to be in the binary update (Colin's) stuff too. I Would've loved to have joined into the Coding ``love-in'' this coming summer, but my shoulder said, ARE YOU AN IDIOT! so not now. Besides, other tasks await. contro IMHO the sooner Google or in general the second IT/OSS boom fizzles out and stops solliciting what in the end equals free labor the better. Just my opinion. I don't trust them. They just want to have their fishing spot in their own backyard just like MS and Sun and Apple and Novell and they want it on the cheap. Once the IP wars go all out they are not going to give one damn about the original author of a work that has become theirs or what (s)he thinks or believes. /versial I think if you want certain things in ports/packages to change or to have (yet another) alternative management tool, the thing to do is to write it and PR it. It will also give you the largest amount of control. And I bet you can do it. Flames to /dev/null,guys; rational responses see-vous-play. gary Still trying to learn French :-) Meh. l'Amour et l'enfer are all you need to know. Oh, yeah, and fries of course. That's s'il vous-plait (needs two ^'s on both i's IIRC). I also found it useful to know where the Rue des Bons-Enfants was in Paris but you probably don't. Very off-topic :) PS: I hopefully will be upgrading//getting a faster used server to replace TAO. Even if that resolves part of my upgrade problem, I think we can do lots better with maintaining current ports. A week or so ago, you were asking about packages and if they might be offered by port submitters. I think if submitters would use tinderbox to build packages it may be much easier to get pkgs that are all from (somewhat or even exactly) the same pristine build environment. That's one idea I thought of (some port maintainers and most committers use it). I wonder if it might be too much to ask of our submitters/maintainers though. Dan ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Upgrade suggestion
On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 05:58:28PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 26 Mar 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 26/03/07, Chuck Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 26, 2007, at 4:40 PM, Gary Kline wrote: Hi Folks, Last night it struck me that one reason I constantly find new ports to upgrade is that with ~17K ports, if you're running one of the more common desktop managers and several popular apps, there are going to be at least a dozen minor tweaks every day. Possibly, for a very busy program with multiple authors actively making changes. Normally, projects accumulate such changes and only release point version updates perhaps every month or so, and most have updates available much less often than that. E.g.:going from foo-1.6.7_2 to foo-1.6.7_3. Portrevision bumps commonly happen when an underlying dependency changes; you generally don't get any changes to foo itself, unless the program version itself changes. I used to run port[upgrade|manager] twice/week. Was swamped; recently, upgrading things daily. Since a lot of the wm ports take 24 hours to build/re-build, I'm pretty much wedged. Thus this suggestion (for all port/package upgrade suites): have a flag, say 'u' for urgent when *foo* goes from foo-1.6.7 to -1.6.8 or else when/if foo makes a critical fix. There's an easier way: you can probably wait to rebuild ports until you see something listed in portaudit's output, or you know you want to update something being actively used to a specific known version that you need. Of course, Gentoo's portage system does all of this. Of course, Gentoo's portage system is a complete labyrinth of configuration files scattered over countless myriads (10^4) of subdirectories so that running a mixture of Holy-and-Blessed Versions and testing versions becomes a lovely game of tag combined with memory and $10,000 Pyramid, only fewer bleached-white teeth. I've run several distros of Linux. Ubuntu is (or *was*) my favorite; they're getting carried away. (IMHO). I think the addition of portaudit for such a huge (~17K ports!) collection (and a much less strenuous upgrade cycle) is an excellent idea. -- -- Gentoo is a pain, but it's the only thing I can really run (stable-y) on my Core 2 Duo box right now (desktop). Not ready to go straight to -CURRENT on a desktop, quite yet.. I'll give it 6.2-RELEASE shot in a week. But anyhow, I do really like ports more, for all of its quirks.. it truly is a better (simpler) system to deal with, and as long as some of the stuff under the hood gets fixed soon, the better. For tuning things to your server, compiler, just the way you want it, yes. I'm still building tests for g**-4.2, and will post something when I have anything solid. Oh, but you shouldn't really have to worry about upgrading stuff all the time Gary. There's no point in upgrading packages daily -- I used to do that in Gentoo and all it did was waste precious CPU cycles and reduce the life of my hard disk. Upgrades once to twice a week do just fine for many systems (unless you're purposely running LINT for the entire ports collection -- which doesn't exist quite yet :)..). Lint?!! Good grief, I haven't touched that for years. My trying-to-keep-current started when I had 6.2 firmly on my backup DNS server. I figured it would be trivial to have _everything_ current ... and ran smack into the consequences of complexity theory. I'll chill out and use portaudit! thanks, guys, gary -Garrett ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Gary Kline [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.thought.org Public Service Unix ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Upgrade suggestion
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 03:59:54AM +0200, Danny Pansters wrote: On Tuesday 27 March 2007 01:40:40 Gary Kline wrote: Hi Folks, Last night it struck me that one reason I constantly find new ports to upgrade is that with ~17K ports, if you're running one of the more common desktop managers and several popular apps, there are going to be at least a dozen minor tweaks every day. E.g.:going from foo-1.6.7_2 to foo-1.6.7_3. I used to run port[upgrade|manager] twice/week. Was swamped; recently, upgrading things daily. Since a lot of the wm ports take 24 hours to build/re-build, I'm pretty much wedged. Thus But you don't *have* to rebuild all the time. I'd wager to say that it's foolish to do so. When you have, e.g. a nice open-office, compiled with, say, the KDE option, there's no immediate need to update the beast if it happens to be updated. Maybe if it's a security fix, but otherwise if the thing works well for you, no need to update. Unless you want to of course. I do a massive portupgrade every 1-2 months on my desktop and I don't feel I'm missing out (and if I do I'll do that update earlier). And yes, usually there's a thing or two that I have to fix manually. It will happen also if you csup-through-cron every day. Perhaps more often. I think you're trying to overdo whilst still trying to minimize build time (= stability shall we say) and such. They're two conflicting goals. Hi Dan My latest (of N:) thoughts/ideas was to do a custom i686 build on my P2 and P3 boxes. This on my 700-750MHz server, this one. Eventually I would have everything in package form and it would be simple to scp * around. It would take months to get everything built with O3 (and gcc4.x), optimizing for speed by doing [[intelligent]] loop-unrolling. Last year I had my first fatal panic in 11 years. And I hadn't cross backup in days shudder. Some eu-daemon must have been looking out because a fellow I don't know/never met stopped over and did some network magic, and got enough off my drive. That panic was a good lesson because it impelled me to automate backups. Stability is an end goal, but perfect stability is a mirage... . Besides, the kind of stability I'm looking for is in the kernel, and BSD has as stable a kernel as exists. We have more than one port update tools (and they do somewhat different things), that would complicate things a lot I think (what color is yer bikeshed), and such a thing would probably need to be in the binary update (Colin's) stuff too. At least five years ago one listmember was complaining about the ports system and was advised to come up with his own. He said he would and wouldn;'t be back until he was finished. One of the first things is, as I see it, is to define the problems ... and do so on a whiteboard or forum. One tack that I would take would be to have a freeze-frame one every N days or weeks. Once the ports collection worked/built (or 95+% of it), put it out for folks to build or download in generic [i3][4][5][686]. See if this works; then do it for the other architectures. But I'm sure it's not that clean cut. The dependencies' dependencies had their own dependencies :-) So... . contro IMHO the sooner Google or in general the second IT/OSS boom fizzles out and stops solliciting what in the end equals free labor the better. Just my opinion. I don't trust them. They just want to have their fishing spot in their own backyard just like MS and Sun and Apple and Novell and they want it on the cheap. Once the IP wars go all out they are not going to give one damn about the original author of a work that has become theirs or what (s)he thinks or believes. /versial If I shared my *real* thoughts, somebody would shoot me in the back! That said, I'm open to giving this a try. We'll see if Google's ethics hold up. I think if you want certain things in ports/packages to change or to have (yet another) alternative management tool, the thing to do is to write it and PR it. It will also give you the largest amount of control. And I bet you can do it. Flames to /dev/null,guys; rational responses see-vous-play. gary Still trying to learn French :-) Meh. l'Amour et l'enfer are all you need to know. Oh, yeah, and fries of course. That's s'il vous-plait (needs two ^'s on both i's IIRC). I also found it useful to know where the Rue des Bons-Enfants was in Paris but you probably don't. Very off-topic :) PS: I hopefully will be upgrading//getting a faster used server to replace TAO. Even if that resolves part of my upgrade problem, I think we can do lots
