Re: [HEADSUP] pkg(8) is now the only package management tool

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"
>
>