On 2005-08-18, Joerg Sonnenberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 11:33:11AM -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote:
I can control all options from /etc/mk.conf, not the separation used in
FreeBSD by default.
What's wrong with /etc/make.conf for the system wide default setting?
I
Gabriel Ambuehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Johannes Hofmann wrote:
I don't understand what this has to do with Xen or similar approaches.
Every process has it's own address space anyway. And if there
are local root exploits, they need to be fixed, just as security flaws
that might exist in Xen
jfrazer wrote @ Thu, 18 Aug 2005 01:58:59 -0500:
The reason I'm not running it right now is lack of good binary packages
and a good package management system. I don't have time to mess around
with source builds which may or may not work. I want an upgrade path
that has a good probability of
Michel Talon wrote:
Garance A Drosihn wrote:
I have had very good luck with portupgrade, on multiple freebsd
systems on multiple platforms. I do avoid the biggies like KDE
or Gnome, which obviously helps.
Since half the ports i have on my machine, if not 3/4 require one or
the other
Raphaël Marmier wrote:
This would answer the needs expressed many time in an acceptable
compromise:
- upgrading an app without breaking another in the process
- able to install multiple versions of a package
- allow piecemeal upgrades
- allow updating a single package
- you can have several
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 01:07:24PM +, Charles Allen wrote:
I must admit I'm a bit shocked at the binary packages only talk.
The point of this discussion is NOT binary-only. It is about defining
the requirements for a package management system. You can do normal
source builds, but it can mean
On 11:38, Thu 18 Aug 05, Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 10:11:25 -0700 (PDT)
Matthew Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Illusion. Every time I have ever used portupgrade, the result has
been a completely broken system. Every time.
I do use source builds by
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 01:39:05AM +0200, Raphael Marmier wrote:
While strictly copying MacOSX is not an option, our dream package
management system should allow us to install an application and all its
dependencies in its own directory, possibly with its own config space.
This would be
Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 01:39:05AM +0200, Raphael Marmier wrote:
While strictly copying MacOSX is not an option, our dream package
management system should allow us to install an application and all its
dependencies in its own directory, possibly with its own config
On 2005-08-18, Joerg Sonnenberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 02:39:20AM +0100, Hiten Pandya wrote:
Semantical differences, at best, lets be honest. They really do not
affect the bigger picture all that much and if they do, I would like to
hear about them.
Sure, like
On 2005-08-17, Matthew Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:
:Hiten Pandya wrote:
:
:
: In my opinion, the option to build packages is only useful to people who
: want extreme modifications to their applications. I am sure most
: people, including me would not really care about source packages; I
Raphael Marmier wrote:
In summary, this concept works best for distributing shrinkware like
Office programs, but is not such a good concept as general package
system.
You have a point. However, little research has gone into this kind of
system so its inherent difficulties haven't been
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 12:34:47 -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On 2005-08-17, Matthew Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:
:Hiten Pandya wrote:
:
:
: In my opinion, the option to build packages is only useful to people who
: want extreme modifications to their applications. I am sure most
: people,
mhellwig wrote @ Thu, 18 Aug 2005 15:22:47 +0200:
When DF is SSI clusterable, then of course it is going to be on the
average company desktop, there is no way I am continuing to throw away
all this CPU power other resources when I _have_ an option to use it
even if it means that some apps
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 06:29:43PM +0200, Gabriel Ambuehl wrote:
If anything, it should be thought further (and some are already pressing
in that direction, notably Xen and VMware ESX): self contained
single purpose OS instances.
A nice hype, but IMO a nightmare for administration.
One
Oh, I have nothing against using ports/pkgsrc for producing packages. And
actually couldn't care less how package management is accomplished.
_I just want it to work._
In my experience apt/dpkg has been able to do things that I simply could
not do with ports/portupgrade -- such as upgrading
Well, this is somewhat amusing because we are now all the way
back to my original 'wish list' for a packaging system... that is,
to install packages in self-contained directories, use varsyms
in global directories (like /usr/local/blah) to control visibility,
and to be able to
As you said Joerg, that apt/dpkg* are good for managing packages then for
building them; this seems to be backed by Andreas as well.
One of the only reason why I am still holding onto pkgsrc is because it
has (atleast) some support for views or shall I say isolated installations
of same
:
:Hiten Pandya wrote:
:
:
: In my opinion, the option to build packages is only useful to people who
: want extreme modifications to their applications. I am sure most
: people, including me would not really care about source packages; I for
: one would not bother building OpenOffice or KDE
On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 04:26:21PM +0100, Hiten Pandya wrote:
One of the only reason why I am still holding onto pkgsrc is because it
has (atleast) some support for views or shall I say isolated installations
of same package but different version; apart from that pkgsrc has no
overall
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 22:54:32 +0200, Erik P. Skaalerud wrote:
As Joerg said earlier, why not rather look at _why_ people love to use
apt instead of pkg_*?
Can't we just try to make our own packaging system (like apt wich is
easy to use) wich could perhaps use packages as primary medium,
Garance A Drosihn wrote:
I have had very good luck with portupgrade, on multiple freebsd
systems on multiple platforms. I do avoid the biggies like KDE
or Gnome, which obviously helps.
Since half the ports i have on my machine, if not 3/4 require one or the
other of Gnome libraries,
ejc wrote:
On 8/17/05, Michel Talon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have never used portage, but a lot of people are very happy with it.
But for sure i have encountered severe breakage in FreeBSD ports, so
i don't see any reason to despise the Gentoo work.
I run Gentoo at work and fight with
23 matches
Mail list logo
