Michelle Sullivan
2014-Sep-02 01:51 UTC
[HEADSUP] pkg(8) is now the only package management tool
Sam Fourman Jr. wrote:>> And for the portsnap users? >> >> >> > In short, this change doesn't directly effect portsnap users. >Sure about that?> Portsnap is a tool that used to obtain a copy of the ports tree. >try this: portsnap fetch update && cd /usr/ports/ports-mgmt/pkg && make install If you *haven't* install pkg first...> Portsnap is only one way, another way to get a copy of the ports tree is by > using subversion and checking it out by using the svn command. >Not much good if you haven't installed svn already...> pkg(8) is a package management tool, and to make use of most packages > having a copy of the ports tree is not required. > >Correct, take a 9.2 install disk, install it, portsnap and then install pkg on it... Oh wait, you can't.. pkg_install is broken, and 9.2 install disks don't have pkg in the BaseOS.... -- Michelle Sullivan http://www.mhix.org/
Andrew Berg
2014-Sep-02 02:16 UTC
[HEADSUP] pkg(8) is now the only package management tool
On 2014.09.01 20:51, Michelle Sullivan wrote:>>> And for the portsnap users? >>> >> In short, this change doesn't directly effect portsnap users. >> > Sure about that?I'm sure of it. Your issue is with the tree itself, not the tool used to fetch it.> Correct, take a 9.2 install disk, install it, portsnap and then install > pkg on it... Oh wait, you can't.. pkg_install is broken, and 9.2 > install disks don't have pkg in the BaseOS....Use the ports tree tarball included, or fetch it (either during or after installation). It is not impossible to get an old version of the ports tree with only the 9.2 base system. I don't see how this is anything more than an inconvenience. Also, 9.3 is out and the 9.2 EOL is not far away. Not sure why you would be doing a new install with 9.2.
Matthew D. Fuller
2014-Sep-02 02:26 UTC
[HEADSUP] pkg(8) is now the only package management tool
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 03:51:31AM +0200 I heard the voice of Michelle Sullivan, and lo! it spake thus:> > Correct, take a 9.2 install disk, install it, portsnap and then > install pkg on it... Oh wait, you can't.. pkg_install is broken, > and 9.2 install disks don't have pkg in the BaseOS....So what? The pkg port uses _ITSELF_ to register. The "pkg" in the base system isn't pkg, it just a bootstrap to fetch the pkg pkg (which them uses itself to register too). If you're using the pkg _PORT_, it's not even involved in the first place. -- Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | fullermd at over-yonder.net Systems/Network Administrator | http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/ On the Internet, nobody can hear you scream.
Michelle Sullivan
2014-Sep-02 02:27 UTC
Re: [HEADSUP] pkg(8) is now the only package management tool
Andrew Berg wrote:> On 2014.09.01 20:51, Michelle Sullivan wrote: > >>>> And for the portsnap users? >>>> >>>> >>> In short, this change doesn't directly effect portsnap users. >>> >>> >> Sure about that? >> > I'm sure of it. Your issue is with the tree itself, not the tool used to fetch it. > > >> Correct, take a 9.2 install disk, install it, portsnap and then install >> pkg on it... Oh wait, you can't.. pkg_install is broken, and 9.2 >> install disks don't have pkg in the BaseOS.... >> > Use the ports tree tarball included, or fetch it (either during or after > installation). It is not impossible to get an old version of the ports tree > with only the 9.2 base system. I don't see how this is anything more than an > inconvenience. >Actually it's an inconvenience for someone like me and you. Not for many freebsd users, and certainly not for me 6 months ago if I hadn't been writing my own ports.... oh and what was it, 1.3.6 -> 1.3.7? broke shit... (badly) ...> Also, 9.3 is out and the 9.2 EOL is not far away. Not sure why you would be > doing a new install with 9.2. >Try getting yourself a FreeBSD server at Softlayer... They still install 7.x for Christ's sake (amongst others - but last time I checked, on new servers, 8.4, 9.0, 9.1, 10.0*) * the 10.0 is the original release, completely unpatched. Look I'm not saying the change isn't for the better, I'm saying not supporting older systems until you're sure 99% of the userbase is upgraded is not a bad thing, what I am saying is deliberately breaking all older systems (some without *major pain*) when the new system has just had a major issue, and not everyone had time to upgrade is a *bad thing* ... (not had time - because an EOL message is not a 'It will not work after this date' message it is a 'you're unsupported after this date and things *might* not work as expected' - even Windows XP didn't got his root... they EOL'd XP, then they stated for 2 or was it 3 years, that after 'x' date there would not be any new security patches... but you can still get software for XP, some is even patched... FreeBSD... Sept 1, 2014, you're not on pkg, you're fucked.) -- Michelle Sullivan http://www.mhix.org/ _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Julian Elischer
2014-Sep-02 02:39 UTC
Re: [HEADSUP] pkg(8) is now the only package management tool
On 9/1/14, 7:16 PM, Andrew Berg wrote:> On 2014.09.01 20:51, Michelle Sullivan wrote: >>>> And for the portsnap users? >>>> >>> In short, this change doesn't directly effect portsnap users. >>> >> Sure about that? > I'm sure of it. Your issue is with the tree itself, not the tool used to fetch it. > >> Correct, take a 9.2 install disk, install it, portsnap and then install >> pkg on it... Oh wait, you can't.. pkg_install is broken, and 9.2 >> install disks don't have pkg in the BaseOS.... > Use the ports tree tarball included, or fetch it (either during or after > installation). It is not impossible to get an old version of the ports tree > with only the 9.2 base system. I don't see how this is anything more than an > inconvenience. > Also, 9.3 is out and the 9.2 EOL is not far away. Not sure why you would be > doing a new install with 9.2.sigh.. when are we as a project, all going to learn that reality in business is that you often need to install stuff that is old. Its not always your choice. The custommers require it.. You should try arguing with someone like Bank of Americas security and operations department some day about whether they want to suddenly upgrade 300 machines for no real reason (from their perspective). On that topic, 10.0 is slightly broken from that perspective because as you install it, it upgrades pkg to a new version that was not in 10.0, so you can no longer build a 10.0 machine that matches the 10.0 machines you installed at the custommer site when 10.0 first came out, that they qualified as acceptible.. Well you MAY get the mostly same result, but the 'pkg' you have is a different one so the image checks out as different' (Imaginary hooters sound and theoretical security alerts trigger etc.) (oh and it interacts badly with the installer designed to run with the previous version.. The first part of the install works fine, and then half way through the install, things go strange when pkg upgrades itself.) 10.0 is past but we should think about how to prevent that in 10.1 etc. I guess the pkg config file in the install needs to be locked down to the release until the install is completed. We should make sure the base install only installs the pkg in the release and doesn't upgrade itself without asking first... (luckily that last issue doesn't affect most business customers who use their own install schemes).> _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > >_______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"