freebsd stable - Sep 2014 - [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.

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/

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 at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe at
freebsd.org"
>
>

Julian Elischer wrote:
>
> You should try arguing with someone like Bank of Americas security and
> operations
> department 
You work for the same company as me?
> some day about whether they want to suddenly upgrade 300 machines
> for no real reason (from their perspective).
>
-- 
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"

On 2014.09.01 21:27, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
> 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) ...
There were instructions for upgrading 1.3.6 to 1.3.7 alongside a notice that
things would not be good if the instructions were not followed and an
explanation of the issue. I think these kinds of notices need to reach more
people, but of course, that is easier said than done.
BTW, from what I have observed, 1.3.x issues have affected Poudriere users the
most, binary package users a bit less (but still significantly), and pure ports
users very little.
>> 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*)
Fair enough.
> (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'
No, it means "we're not supporting this any more, so we don't care
if there are
new vulnerabilities or things stop working". I'm not going to dictate
to other
people what their upgrade schedule should be, but anyone running unsupported
versions of software should not have any expectation that the ecosystem around
it will be accommodating.
The ports tree already requires a lot work to make sure everything works on
supported versions of FreeBSD, and I see no reason whatsoever for anyone to put
effort into making it work on EOL versions.
_______________________________________________
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"

On 2014.09.01 21:39, Julian Elischer wrote:
> 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).
FreeBSD minor version upgrades are meant to be non-disruptive. However, I will
admit that I have not performed any such upgrades in a critical environment, so
if you think they are disruptive, please enlighten me with the details.
Also, there are options out there for getting support for extended periods if
you need it. Some companies are built around providing support for things that
the original developers have long abandoned because some businesses need it.
_______________________________________________
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"

On 9/1/2014 9:27 PM, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
> oh and what was it, 1.3.6 -> 1.3.7? broke
> shit... (badly) ...
What broke? I am not aware of any new regressions in 1.3.7.

-- 
Regards,
Bryan Drewery