On 04 June 2012 16:24:56 Chris Rees wrote: > On 3 June 2012 21:55, O. Hartmann <ohart...@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!). > > > >> > >> 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. > > You can't have both. As has been repeatedly explained to you, you > should not expect an easy life with the very latest of software. > but FreeBSD only offer bleeding edge.
This is why I suggest to have version numbers on the ports tree. Erich _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
