>>
>
> *THAT* is the tone I was complaining about. This is not at all respectful.
>
Respect is a two way street. If you want respect, offer yours. We make our
point very poorly, I get you, but it is the result of what you and others
from the projectdo. Meaning, 0 communication. I dont k
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Ivan Klymenko wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 16:42:33 -0600
> Warner Losh wrote:
>
> > The CAM I/O scheduler has been committed to current. This work is
> > described in
> > https://people.freebsd.org/~imp/bsdcan2015/iosched-v3.pdf though the
> > default scheduler
Hi!
> This works fine (after a source rebuild of pkg), but for tools like
> portupgrade (from ports), which use pkg under the hood to handle
> dependency checks. pkg against the ports tree vs. pkg against my
> LOCALBASE=/usr/pkg were conflicting. So I asked some questions about how
> to reso
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 8:41 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
> You guys need to get over that and come back to the table to have a
> rational discussion with the vast majority of people who actually USE this
> OS. All glory to Juniper and Citrix and everyone else who packages the OS
> into their var
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 08:41:06PM -0700, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
> But the dependency base will be huge.
Yet you fail to explain how.
> Right now I can count on a very limited set of dependencies for
> anything I ship as a 3rd party package.
How is this different than the existing model? What
Same as it is now for releases. Packages will be available for SAs/ENs.
There is no intention to change this model.
I get that. But the dependency base will be huge. Right now I can count on
a very limited set of dependencies for anything I ship as a 3rd party
package. Doing that for n>100 p
On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 03:21:38AM +, Glen Barber wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 08:17:15PM -0700, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
> > With freebsd-update, an announcement comes out that says 'update'!. So we
> > do. Move from 10.2-p11 to 10.2-p12. There is a very clear track record of
> > why and
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 08:17:15PM -0700, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
> With freebsd-update, an announcement comes out that says 'update'!. So we
> do. Move from 10.2-p11 to 10.2-p12. There is a very clear track record of
> why and how this happened.
>
> What will be the new update frequency with >
Here's a real example.
I have n Centos servers. Cron, once or twice a day, updates our local
cache of the yum repos. Then nagios comes along and flags 35 packages out
of date.
An hour later, management comes along asking questions about the security
implications of those packages. An hour l
On Tue, 19 Apr 2016, Warner Losh wrote:
Sadly the tenor and tone of the discussion isn?t one where progress is
made. The tone has been a bit toxic and demanding, which grinds people
into dust, rather than motivating them to fix things. You might call it
a discussion, but it reads to me more as
On Tue, 19 Apr 2016, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
As far as I know, nobody is taking the source code or the Makefiles
away, so if somebody doesn't like the system being distributed with
pkg, they can very well roll their own.
True enough. But I am also wary of decending into what became of X, whe
On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 16:42:33 -0600
Warner Losh wrote:
> The CAM I/O scheduler has been committed to current. This work is
> described in
> https://people.freebsd.org/~imp/bsdcan2015/iosched-v3.pdf though the
> default scheduler doesn't change the default (old) behavior.
>
> One possible issue, h
Hi!
dan wrote:
> Another small issue, is in general the politics of the FreeBSD dev team
> regarding bug fixes. I personally would be glad to see more commitment from
> the dev team regarding bug fixes.
>From what I can see, there's not much politics, but serious work
overload, and not much room
As long as packaged base is not mandatory, it is fine by me.
+1 on that
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd
Julian Elischer wrote:
I mentioned this before but I think hte answer is to make a change on
the way that "meta packages" are displayed by default in pkg.
I like this suggestion both as it applies to base and third party
packages and agree that the 'leaf' keyword, once documented, will
address
On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 06:22:04 -0700 (PDT), "Jeffrey Bouquet"
wrote:
>
>
> - Start Forwarded Message -
> Sent: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 14:10:40 -0700 (PDT)
> From: "Jeffrey Bouquet"
> To: "current"
> Subject: Re: Re: Installworld, BW, IK fixed, here are the in > out
> loader.conf lines
>
It's lack of communication.
> *This* is the reason that *this* and similar topics become so heated;
> People who are part of a "community", such as FreeBSD. Want to feel
> they are part of the "big picture", and immediately feel resentment,
It is in fact much more than that. Surely there are
On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 20:09:30 + "Poul-Henning Kamp"
wrote
> As far as I know, nobody is taking the source code or the Makefiles
> away, so if somebody doesn't like the system being distributed with
> pkg, they can very well roll their own.
>
> It's nice to see the level of enthusiasm the Free
>
> Not taking a side on this discussion, yet… but the first thing that
I do not believe there are sides to take, because I am absolutely positive
everybody in this thread wants only whats better for FreeBSD, so there is
only one side. It is an aspect which in the heat of emotions some people
se
- Start Forwarded Message -
Sent: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 14:10:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Jeffrey Bouquet"
To: "current"
Subject: Re: Re: Installworld, BW, IK fixed, here are the in > out
loader.conf lines
On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 13:29:59 -0700 (PDT), "Jeffrey Bouquet"
wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 2
> On 19.04.2016 г., at 5:01, Roger Marquis wrote:
>
> Honestly, some of us are wondering what exactly is
> behind some of these concerns regarding base packages.
>
Not taking a side on this discussion, yet… but the first thing that occurred to
me is that such way of packaging is traditional f
This is one of the issue I perceive with using scripts/ intermediate
programs
as a glue, a problem which does not exist when the daemons are integrated
tighter. You basically give up all the power which arises from
inter-operating
daemons give to the system.
It is also the main problem FreeB
On 0422T0908, David Chisnall wrote:
> On 21 Apr 2016, at 21:48, Dan Partelly wrote:
> >
> > Yes, you are right it misses the media change handler in devd.conf.
> > maybe it should bementioned somewhere in a man page if it is not
> > already there. Thanks for the pointer.
> >
> > Anyway, if I w
On 0421T2348, Dan Partelly wrote:
> Yes, you are right it misses the media change handler in devd.conf.
> maybe it should bementioned somewhere in a man page if it is not
> already there. Thanks for the pointer.
It's mentioned in a comment in auto_master file. But yeah, mentioning
it in a manua
> Ideally, when the automounter daemon starts, it should
> connect to devd via an IPC channel and request notification of the
specific
> events that it wants
I was under the impression that devd.seqpacket.pipe accomplishes this.
Am I right in assuming that the issue is that devd forwards ALL even
On 21 Apr 2016, at 21:48, Dan Partelly wrote:
>
> Yes, you are right it misses the media change handler in devd.conf.
> maybe it should bementioned somewhere in a man page if it is not
> already there. Thanks for the pointer.
>
> Anyway, if I would have written the system, what I would have do
26 matches
Mail list logo
