freebsd stable - Sep 2008 - ports from -release vs. -latest [was: RE: FreeBSD 7.1 Content]

> Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 10:22:30 -0400
> From: Jim Pingle <lists@pingle.org>
> Subject: Re: FreeBSD 7.1 Content
> To: Wesley Shields <wxs@FreeBSD.org>
> Cc: Dan Allen <danallen46@airwired.net>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
> Message-ID: <48BFEF26.2070405@pingle.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Wesley Shields wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 06:28:44PM -0600, Dan Allen wrote:
> >> Hey, these great comments bring up a different solution,
> which may be
> >> the way to go.
> >>
> >> It is simple: have a few of the common apps that are
> net-centric (like
> >> firefox) be simply calls to pkg_add -r in the installer.  No ports
> >> databases, no packages on the discs.  A few packages may be useful
> >> (like perl) to someone without net access, but many need
> the net to be
> >> useful.
> >
> > No thanks.  This means you have to have a working
> connection to install
> > firefox via this method.  Since not everyone will have that
> it is still
> > necessary to bundle the firefox package on the media,
> bringing us right
> > back to the very issue you are trying to solve.
>
> Could this not also be resolved another way?
>
> Most desktops these days have DVD drives. If someone wants a bootable
> desktop-targeted release with X, Firefox and such, why not
> make that a DVD
> instead of trying to shoehorn all of this into a CD? Most of the older
> machines with aging CD-ROM drives or without a DVD drive may
> not have the
> horsepower to run a live CD with X anyhow. My servers only have CD-ROM
> drives, but then again they wouldn't be using a
> desktop-oriented live CD
> with X either. :-)
>
> Sure, the download would be (much?) larger, but you would
> have a lot more
> room to work with.
>
> The CD installs are great for me, and have worked well for years.
> Personally, I install, update to -STABLE from a local cvsup
> mirror, then use
> an updated ports tree or install packages remotely. The
> packages on CD are
> out of date practically from the moment they are placed
> there, so I rarely
> use them. The only package I regularly used was

I use to update ports almost weekly from -latest, but the resulting GUI is
not always consistent, so I am considering to stick with the -release tag.
Could someone comment on the quality of ports from -release vs. -latest? In
other words, can I expect a substantial gain in usability by doing so?

Ernest


> cvsup-without-gui, which has
> been replaced by csup in the base system.
>
> Also, is not Ubuntu a "downstream" release of Debian, much
> like FreeSBIE and
> PC-BSD are "downstream" of FreeBSD? If you want to compare
> apples to apples,
> you might investigate those choices a little closer.
>
> Jim

On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 10:30:49PM +0200, Ernest Sales
wrote:
> I use to update ports almost weekly from -latest, but the resulting GUI is
> not always consistent, so I am considering to stick with the -release tag.
> Could someone comment on the quality of ports from -release vs. -latest? In
> other words, can I expect a substantial gain in usability by doing so?
The ports tree is not branched like the src tree.  If you want any
updates you get the latest.  The ports tree as presented on the install
media is merely a snapshot of the tree at that point in time.  If you
only use that tree you will never receive updates.  If that tree works
well for you and you don't care about updates of any kind then go ahead
and stick on that tree.  Personally, I want updates to some important
(to me) pieces of software so I do keep things updated.

Please do not take this as an opportunity to bring up the "we should
use a branched approach to ports" discussion.  That's been done many
times before so look in the archives if you want more information.

-- WXS