On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 4:55 PM, O. Hartmann <ohartman_at_zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote: > 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!). Build the application directly from source. The suggestion to use the ports tree for software is so that the system has a consistent structure; however, when it comes down to it, just the base system is the only part that needs to be unified, everything else can be installed from source. > >> >> 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 processor speed does not matter when compiling; on the other hand, processor compatibility is important. > >> >> 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. > At times it is necessary for the end user to edit files and build applications directly from source. If a homeless person like me can take time to learn FreeBSD to the point of working with PowerPC and other projects, then why can't the lot of you with all that you have take the time to learn enough to maintain something as simple as a third party application?Received on Sun Jun 03 2012 - 19:16:59 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:27 UTC