Michelle Sullivan
2014-Sep-02 02:27 UTC
[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/
Andrew Berg
2014-Sep-02 03:02 UTC
[HEADSUP] pkg(8) is now the only package management tool
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.
Michelle Sullivan
2014-Sep-02 03:09 UTC
Re: [HEADSUP] pkg(8) is now the only package management tool
Andrew Berg wrote:> 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. >I am a poudriere user... across 8.4, 9.0, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 10.0 on both i386 and amd64 :/> >>> 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. >That's my point - there was a patch waiting to submit that knowingly broke pkg_install at midnight on the day after the EOL... the EOL shouldn't be an EOL - because it was really a 'portsnap after this date before you upgrade and you're screwed it won't work any more at all...'> 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. >Some of us have production systems that span 6.0->10.0 (and most version in between) and are fighting fires with minimal help just trying to keep ahead.... -- 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"
yaneurabeya@gmail.com
2014-Sep-02 03:14 UTC
Re: [HEADSUP] pkg(8) is now the only package management tool
On Sep 1, 2014, at 20:02, Andrew Berg <aberg010@my.hennepintech.edu> wrote:> 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.Installing pkgng on FreeBSD 7.x isn’t impossible, but it does require jumping through some hoops because xz not being present until 8.x. These directions aren’t complete (welcome to feedback if anyone runs into issues), but they’re a start: https://github.com/yaneurabeya/scratch/blob/master/docs/cheatsheets/freebsd . Cheers! -Garrett
Bryan Drewery
2014-Sep-02 13:46 UTC
[HEADSUP] pkg(8) is now the only package management tool
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 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 488 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/attachments/20140902/1ec4bd83/attachment.sig>