Quoting Paul Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
From Scott Long [EMAIL PROTECTED], Sun, May 21, 2006 at 11:44:27PM -0600:
I share this frustration with you. I was once told that the pain in
upgrading is due largely to a somewhat invisible difference between
installing a pre-compiled package, and
Quoting Ion-Mihai IOnut Tetcu [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, 22 May 2006 11:40:16 +0200
Marian Hettwer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ports tree in the process, the end result is a bit more undefined. One
thing that I wish for is that the ports tree would branch for releases,
and that those
Chris H. wrote:
This brings up a point I have been wanting to bring up for over a mos.;
I adopted an orphaned port (contacted the owner, whom then relenquished
ownership to me.). But found it _more_ than difficult to discover how
to inform the fBSD port(s) system of it's new, *un*orphaned
Quoting Frank Steinborn [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Chris H. wrote:
This brings up a point I have been wanting to bring up for over a mos.;
I adopted an orphaned port (contacted the owner, whom then relenquished
ownership to me.). But found it _more_ than difficult to discover how
to inform the fBSD
On May 22, 2006, at 12:38 AM, Brent Casavant wrote:
So, in short, that's why *I* rarely update ports for security reasons.
Another valid reason is configuration management. We run web
services, and in order to ensure nothing breaks, we have to use a
fixed set of code. Upgrading any
On May 22, 2006, at 6:45 AM, Steven Hartland wrote:
On good example of portupgrade going off on one is a simple
upgrade of mtr we dont install any X on our machines so mtr-nox11
is installed. Whenever I've tried portupgrade in the past its
always trolled of and started downloading and build
From Scott Long [EMAIL PROTECTED], Sun, May 21, 2006 at 11:44:27PM -0600:
I share this frustration with you. I was once told that the pain in
upgrading is due largely to a somewhat invisible difference between
installing a pre-compiled package, and building+installing a port. In
theory, if
On 5/22/06, Colin Percival [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you administrate system(s) running FreeBSD (in the broad sense of are
responsible for keeping system(s) secure and up to date), please visit
http://people.freebsd.org/~cperciva/survey.html
and complete the survey below before May 31st,
On May 21, 2006, at 22:41, David Nugent wrote:
A good failover strategy comes into play here.
If you have one, then taking a single production machine off-line
for a short period should be no big deal, even routine, and should
not even be noticed by users if done correctly. This should
On Monday 22 May 2006 01:44, Scott Long wrote:
Brent Casavant wrote:
On Sun, 21 May 2006, Colin Percival wrote:
In order to better understand
which FreeBSD versions are in use, how people are (or aren't)
keeping them updated, and why it seems so many systems are not
being updated, I have
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-freebsd-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Colin Percival
Sent: lundi 22 mai 2006 5:55
To: freebsd security; FreeBSD Stable
Subject: FreeBSD Security Survey
Dear FreeBSD users and system administrators,
While the FreeBSD Security Team
On Sun, 2006-05-21 at 23:44 -0600, Scott Long wrote:
ports tree in the process, the end result is a bit more undefined. One
thing that I wish for is that the ports tree would branch for releases,
and that those branches would get security updates. I know that this
would involve an
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi there,
Scott Long wrote:
Brent Casavant wrote:
While I find ports to be the single most useful feature of the FreeBSD
experience, and can't thank contributors enough for the efforts, I on
the other hand find updating my installed ports
ports tree in the process, the end result is a bit more undefined. One
thing that I wish for is that the ports tree would branch for releases,
and that those branches would get security updates. I know that this
would involve an exponentially larger amount of effort from the ports
team, and
Scott Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I share this frustration with you. I was once told that the pain in
upgrading is due largely to a somewhat invisible difference between
installing a pre-compiled package, and building+installing a port. In
theory, if you stick to one method or the other,
Scott Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I share this frustration with you. I was once told that the pain in
upgrading is due largely to a somewhat invisible difference between
installing a pre-compiled package, and building+installing a port.
Well, the last time I saw this as a major issue was
Le 22/05/2006 11:43, Michel Talon a ?crit:
OpenBSD doesn't have next to 15000 ports. In my opinion, this richness is
one of the main assets of FreeBSD, and by necessity implies a great difficulty
to maintain everything in a coherent and secure state. You have only to
contemplate the years
On Mon, 22 May 2006 11:40:16 +0200
Marian Hettwer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ports tree in the process, the end result is a bit more undefined. One
thing that I wish for is that the ports tree would branch for releases,
and that those branches would get security updates. I know that this
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Ion,
Ion-Mihai IOnut Tetcu wrote:
I have to agree on that statement. I would love to see branched ports.
This can get very important on servers, were you don't want to have
major upgrades, but only security updates.
I guess it's a question of
Brent Casavant wrote:
On Sun, 21 May 2006, Colin Percival wrote:
So, in short, that's why *I* rarely update ports for security reasons.
There are steps that could be taken at the port maintenance level that
would work well for my particular case, however that's beyond the
scope of the
On Mon, 22 May 2006 12:43:47 +0200
Marian Hettwer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Ion,
Ion-Mihai IOnut Tetcu wrote:
I have to agree on that statement. I would love to see branched ports.
This can get very important on servers, were you don't
On 05/22/06 05:40, Marian Hettwer wrote:
Scott Long wrote:
Brent Casavant wrote:
While I find ports to be the single most useful feature of the FreeBSD
experience, and can't thank contributors enough for the efforts, I on
the other hand find updating my installed ports collection (for
On 05/22/06 06:45, Steven Hartland wrote:
Brent Casavant wrote:
On Sun, 21 May 2006, Colin Percival wrote:
So, in short, that's why *I* rarely update ports for security reasons.
There are steps that could be taken at the port maintenance level that
would work well for my particular case,
On May 22, 2006, at 9:12 AM, Jonathan Noack wrote:
On 05/22/06 06:45, Steven Hartland wrote:
Brent Casavant wrote:
On Sun, 21 May 2006, Colin Percival wrote:
So, in short, that's why *I* rarely update ports for security
reasons.
There are steps that could be taken at the port
Paul Allen wrote:
...
Some speculation: I've always thought portupgrade did the Wrong
Thing(tm) by consulting the dependency graph in /var/db. Better to
merely learn which packages were installed and then exclusively use
the port information...
Well, a.o. portmaster tries just to do that.
As an administrator, time is always an issue. FreeBSD has proven
itself time and again. Having said that, one wish would be to have
a default/built-in security update mechanism.
Since time is always and issue, if the system could by default
(without an admin having to write
Charles Howse wrote:
Just curious, where are WITHOUT_X11 and WITHOUT_GUI documented? I
don't see either in /usr/share/examples/etc/make.conf, nor in man
make.conf.
Many options (not all) are described in /usr/ports/KNOBS (but withou
WITH_/WITHOUT_ prefixes)
Miroslav Lachman
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 12:06:54AM -0400, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
On May 21, 2006, at 11:55 , Colin Percival wrote:
The Security Team has been concerned for some time by anecdotal
reports
concerning the number of FreeBSD systems which are not being promptly
updated or are
From Doug Hardie [EMAIL PROTECTED], Sun, May 21, 2006 at 11:48:51PM -0700:
Failover sounds good in theory but has significant issues in practice
that make it sometimes worse than the alternative. Take mail
spools. If you failover, mail the user saw before has disappeared.
Then when
And it's not only HR lack problem, we would need more hardware for the
package building cluster too.
A lot of us run 24/7 netted servers with spare cycles, wouldn't
be averse to allocating the idle loop to package building for
freebsd.org, but 3 problems:
- package building at prsent
On Mon, 2006-May-22 15:20:11 -, FreeBSD User wrote:
Since time is always and issue, if the system could by default
(without an admin having to write scripts and/or apps, or manually
update) update itself for both system and installed ports/packages, it
likely would reduce security
To: FreeBSD User
Subject: Re: FreeBSD Security Survey
On Mon, 2006-May-22 15:20:11 -, FreeBSD User wrote:
Since time is always and issue, if the system could by default
(without an admin having to write scripts and/or apps, or manually
update) update
itself for both system and installed
On May 22, 2006, at 11:49, Allen wrote:
On my Slackware machines, it was no problem at all, I'd use wget to
grab
the patch .tgz file, then do this:
upgradepkg *.tgz
I believe there was some talk in the past of treating the base system
like a package. NetBSD has some code that does this
Dear FreeBSD users and system administrators,
While the FreeBSD Security Team has traditionally been very good at
investigating and responding to security issues in FreeBSD, this only
solves half of the security problem: Unless users and administrators
of FreeBSD systems apply the security
On May 21, 2006, at 11:55 , Colin Percival wrote:
The Security Team has been concerned for some time by anecdotal
reports
concerning the number of FreeBSD systems which are not being promptly
updated or are running FreeBSD releases which have passed their End of
Life dates and are no longer
On May 21, 2006, at 20:55, Colin Percival wrote:
If you administrate system(s) running FreeBSD (in the broad sense
of are
responsible for keeping system(s) secure and up to date), please
visit
http://people.freebsd.org/~cperciva/survey.html
and complete the survey below before May 31st,
On Sun, 21 May 2006, Colin Percival wrote:
In order to better understand
which FreeBSD versions are in use, how people are (or aren't) keeping
them updated, and why it seems so many systems are not being updated, I
have put together a short survey of 12 questions.
I applaud this survey,
Doug Hardie wrote:
On May 21, 2006, at 20:55, Colin Percival wrote:
If you administrate system(s) running FreeBSD (in the broad sense of
are
responsible for keeping system(s) secure and up to date), please visit
http://people.freebsd.org/~cperciva/survey.html
and complete the survey below
Brent Casavant wrote:
On Sun, 21 May 2006, Colin Percival wrote:
In order to better understand
which FreeBSD versions are in use, how people are (or aren't) keeping
them updated, and why it seems so many systems are not being updated, I
have put together a short survey of 12 questions.
I
39 matches
Mail list logo
