Re: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?

From: O. Hartmann <ohartman_at_zedat.fu-berlin.de>
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 22:55:37 +0200
On 06/03/12 15:29, Erich wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 03 June 2012 PM 5:14:10 Adam Strohl wrote:
>> On 6/3/2012 11:14, Erich wrote:
>>> What I really do not understand in this whole discussion is very simple. Is it just a few people who run into problems like this or is this simply ignored by the people who set the strategy for FreeBSD?
>>>
>>> I mention since yeares here that putting version numbers onto the port tree would solve many of these problems. All I get as an answer is that it is not possible.
>>>
>>> I think that this should be easily possible with the limitation that older versions do not have security fixes. Yes, but of what help is a security fix if there is no running port for the fix?
>>
>> I feel like I'm missing something.  Why would you ever want to go back 
>> to an old version of the ports tree?  You're ignoring tons of security 
>> issues!

... I think the PNG update isn't a security issue. And for not being a
security issue, it triggered an inadequate  mess!

>>
>> And if a port build is broken then the maintainer needs to fix it, that 
>> is the solution.

Look at the comment of the maintainer of LibreOffice ...
>>
>> I must be missing something else here, it just seems like the underlying 
>> "need" for this is misguided (and dangerous from a security perspective).
> 
> yes, you miss a very simple thing. Updated this morning your ports tree. Your client asks for something for Monday morning for which you need now a program which needs some kind of PNG but you did not install it.

... I spent now two complete days watching my boxes updating their
ports. Several ports do not compile anymore (inkscape, libreoffice,
libxul, to name some of the very hurting ones!).

> 
> Do you have a machine that is fast enough to upgrade all your ports and still finish what your client needs Monday morning?

Even my fastest box, a brand new 6 core Sandy-Bridge-E, wasn't capable
of compiling all the ports in due time. Several ports requested
attendance, several, as mentioned, didn't compile out of the blue.

> 
> The ports tree is not broken as such. Only the installation gets broken in some sense. Have a version number there would allow people to go back to the last known working ports tree, install the software - or whatever has to be done - with a working system.
> 
> Of course, the next step will be an upgrade. But only after the work which brings in the money is done.
> 
> You do not face this problem on Windows. You can run a 10 year old 'kernel' and still install modern software.
> 
> Erich

I like having a very modern system with the most recent software. But in
some cases, like these days with the PNG, FreeBSD's ports becomes again
a problem. There is no convenient way to downgrade or allow the
user/admin managing how to deal with the load of updates.


Received on Sun Jun 03 2012 - 18:55:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:27 UTC