FWIW - I have just completely *recompiled* my userland after the 6->7
upgrade - i.e:
# portupgrade --batch -fa
on a PIII 1.26Ghz system in just under 2 days (i.e over the weekend) for
836 packages - desktop system with Gnome etc. So it's not actually too
bad. Using the packages option on fast
On Mon, 2008-03-24 at 23:01 -0700, Chris H. wrote:
> changes, simply add
> include conf/custom1.conf
> include conf/custom2.conf
> include conf/custom... etc... to the http[s]d.conf, and the custom
> changes/additions are sucked in "magically". Apache has been like that
> since the very beginning.
Quoting Michael Gratton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Sat, 2008-03-22 at 20:59 -0700, Freddie Cash wrote:
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Anders Nordby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> conf.d (custom configuration)
> sites-available (virtualhost configuration)
> sites-enabled (symlinks for enabled vi
On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 10:06 -0700, Freddie Cash wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 10:21 PM, Michael Gratton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Actually, it makes two things really easy:
> >
> > 1. Automated installation of configuration required by other packages,
> > without them all munging and po
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 10:21 PM, Michael Gratton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-03-22 at 20:59 -0700, Freddie Cash wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Anders Nordby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > conf.d (custom configuration)
> > > sites-available (virtualhost configurat
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 9:20 PM, Garrett Wollman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>
> Freddie Cash writes:
> >Oh, gods, please, no! That is one of the things I absolutely hate
> >about Debian (and its derivatives). There are some packages on Debian
> >where they use
Garrett Wollman wrote:
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Freddie Cash writes:
Oh, gods, please, no! That is one of the things I absolutely hate
about Debian (and its derivatives). There are some packages on Debian
where they use separate text files for each configuration option
(ProFTPd, for
Greetings,
Eirik Øverby wrote:
On Mar 23, 2008, at 08:28, Matthew Seaman wrote:
Freddie Cash wrote:
All that's really needed is a more formalised process for handling
upgrading config files, with as much as possible managed via the ports
framework itself. Something that dictates the name of
On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 08:40:31 +0100
Eirik Øverby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are a few exceptions to this rule: The courier authdaemon
> ports, for instance, are notorious for overwriting my
> carefully-crafted configuration files when upgrading. I loathe those
Then I hope you have filed a
On Mar 23, 2008, at 08:28, Matthew Seaman wrote:
Freddie Cash wrote:
All that's really needed is a more formalised process for handling
upgrading config files, with as much as possible managed via the
ports
framework itself. Something that dictates the name of the config
file, and that com
Freddie Cash wrote:
All that's really needed is a more formalised process for handling
upgrading config files, with as much as possible managed via the ports
framework itself. Something that dictates the name of the config
file, and that compares the config file from the port against the
instal
On Sat, 2008-03-22 at 20:59 -0700, Freddie Cash wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Anders Nordby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > conf.d (custom configuration)
> > sites-available (virtualhost configuration)
> > sites-enabled (symlinks for enabled virtualhosts)
> > mods-available (availabl
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Freddie Cash writes:
>Oh, gods, please, no! That is one of the things I absolutely hate
>about Debian (and its derivatives). There are some packages on Debian
>where they use separate text files for each configuration option
>(ProFTPd, for examples). It is a huge
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Anders Nordby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 09:28:35PM +0100, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> >> If this thing can be solved (I'm not programmer so I don't know) I can
> >> donate some amount of $ for development. I think that this would make
> >>
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 09:28:35PM +0100, Oliver Fromme wrote:
>> If this thing can be solved (I'm not programmer so I don't know) I can
>> donate some amount of $ for development. I think that this would make
>> lots of people happy.
> I have to admit I see no way how the problem could
> be s
> Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 15:59:27 +1100
> From: Peter Jeremy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 07:43:25PM +0100, Marko Lerota wrote:
> >time from ports because there are only small portion of precompiled
> >packages.
>
> There should be a fairly complete
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 07:43:25PM +0100, Marko Lerota wrote:
>time from ports because there are only small portion of precompiled
>packages.
There should be a fairly complete set of packages for 7.0-RELEASE.
There can never be a totally complete set of packages for legal
reasons - the licenses o
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 03:46:52PM -0400, Kevin K wrote:
> > That said: I do understand what you're saying, and yes, I can see why
> > you would want that. It does make sense, and it's reasonable. It's
> > just hard to achieve. I don't think other mainstream OSes (e.g. Linux)
> > offer this abil
Marko Lerota wrote:
> This thing should be solved. I liked the way that my OS have
> independance from ports.
Well, they are not really completely independent.
The ports still use libraries from the base OS,
e.g. libc, threading libraries etc. Please try
to understand the following simple examp
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 7:46 PM, Kevin K <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That said: I do understand what you're saying, and yes, I can see why
> > you would want that. It does make sense, and it's reasonable. It's
> > just hard to achieve. I don't think other mainstream OSes (e.g. Linux)
> > o
On Mar 19, 2008, at 11:43 AM, Marko Lerota wrote:
This thing should be solved. I liked the way that my OS have
independance
from ports. So no metter what I do with ports, my OS and his apps
will work.
And If I upgrade the OS I dont want to recompile ports for that.
The traditional mechanism
> That said: I do understand what you're saying, and yes, I can see why
> you would want that. It does make sense, and it's reasonable. It's
> just hard to achieve. I don't think other mainstream OSes (e.g. Linux)
> offer this ability either, though. Am I wrong?
Redhat's up2date/yum ? I'm not
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 07:43:25PM +0100, Marko Lerota wrote:
> If you use BSD system only for few apps like PHP/Apache/MySQL it would
> be easy. But if you have lots of stuff for desktop machine (gnome,xfce etc.)
> it's very painful, long, and waste of time. (I don't have x386 33MHz CPU)
>
> T
Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Are you connected via a modem or something? 2-3 days to download some
> packages cannot be right if you have a decent internet connection.
No I have 5Mbps link. It's not the link issue. It's the compilation
time from ports because there are only small
Le Wednesday 19 March 2008 17:41:21 Vivek Khera, vous avez écrit :
> On Mar 19, 2008, at 8:46 AM, Michael Grant wrote:
> > My server is live and serving customers. I can't afford to take the
> > box down for a whole day while I upgrade ports. Is there any
> > intelligent way to do this?
>
> Here'
On Mar 19, 2008, at 8:46 AM, Michael Grant wrote:
My server is live and serving customers. I can't afford to take the
box down for a whole day while I upgrade ports. Is there any
intelligent way to do this?
Here's what you do:
1) take one server at a time down from the load balancer/worker
It's amazing -- I also did my recent 6.3->7.0 exactly this way. Running
it as a desktop, WindowMaker, some of gnu apps. kde is at hand mostly
for a couple of applications, but it works ok either.
My case is much simpler, but I feel that it's worth of considering
alternatives to portupgrade. I
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 01:46:07PM +0100, Michael Grant wrote:
> My server is live and serving customers. I can't afford to take the
> box down for a whole day while I upgrade ports. Is there any
> intelligent way to do this?
The ways people have given you are proper *and* intelligent. I think
My server is live and serving customers. I can't afford to take the
box down for a whole day while I upgrade ports. Is there any
intelligent way to do this?
For example, could I do everything on a second disk while running the
live system on the first disk? For example using a chroot so it
thin
Hello Marko,
I'm very sorry that you have trouble updating your FreeBSD
installation, but there are very good technical reasons to
update your packages, as others have already explained in
detail (i.e. library conflicts).
When I updated my home workstation from FreeBSD 6 to 7,
I used the opportun
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Kevin Oberman wrote:
Or, is the system failing to retrieve the packages and failing over to
building the ports? This would take a long time!
I always tee the output of portupgrade to a file so, if it dies in the
middle, it's pretty easy to pick up where it left off and not
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> Kevin Oberman wrote:
>
> > Or, is the system failing to retrieve the packages and failing over to
> > building the ports? This would take a long time!
> >
> > I always tee the output of portupgrade to a file so, if it dies in the
> > middle, it's
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 8:21 PM, Marko Lerota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> Then the servers. Why should I reinstall all my databases and such?
> >> I always
> >> liked that FreeBSD base (OS) is separated from packages. And no
> >> matter what I d
Kevin Oberman wrote:
Or, is the system failing to retrieve the packages and failing over to
building the ports? This would take a long time!
I always tee the output of portupgrade to a file so, if it dies in the
middle, it's pretty easy to pick up where it left off and not re-build
everything t
> Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:22:52 +0100
> From: Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Marko Lerota wrote:
> > Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >>> Then the servers. Why should I reinstall all my databases and such?
> >>> I always
> >>> liked that FreeBSD
Marko Lerota wrote:
Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Then the servers. Why should I reinstall all my databases and such?
I always
liked that FreeBSD base (OS) is separated from packages. And no
matter what I do with the packages, my OS will always work. I don't
want dependency
hell lik
Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Then the servers. Why should I reinstall all my databases and such?
>> I always
>> liked that FreeBSD base (OS) is separated from packages. And no
>> matter what I do with the packages, my OS will always work. I don't
>> want dependency
>> hell like in
Quoting Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Chris H. wrote:
While not a recommended substitution for "good housekeeping". I thought it
worth mentioning:
LIBMAP.CONF(5)
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=libmap.conf&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=FreeBSD+6.3-RELEASE&format=html
This can be
Sat, 29/02/2008 at 10:08 +0100, Dick Hoogendijk writes:
> > No one is forcing you to upgrade.
> Head in the sand reaction.
Nope.
> I think the guy is right.
> The upgrade proces and constant rebuilding of ports made me switch in
> the end after years of using freeBSD. My computer is fast, but
Chris H. wrote:
While not a recommended substitution for "good housekeeping". I thought it
worth mentioning:
LIBMAP.CONF(5)
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=libmap.conf&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=FreeBSD+6.3-RELEASE&format=html
This can be used safely sometimes, but it is dangerous w
Dick Hoogendijk wrote:
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:43:20 -0500
"Kevin K" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No one is forcing you to upgrade.
Head in the sand reaction.
I think the guy is right.
The upgrade proces and constant rebuilding of ports made me switch in
the end after years of using freeBSD. My
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:43:20 -0500
"Kevin K" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No one is forcing you to upgrade.
Head in the sand reaction.
I think the guy is right.
The upgrade proces and constant rebuilding of ports made me switch in
the end after years of using freeBSD. My computer is fast, but I w
Quoting Marko Lerota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
In http://www.freebsd.org/releases/7.0R/announce.html says
Updating Existing Systems
An upgrade of any existing system to FreeBSD 7.0-RELEASE constitutes
a major version upgrade, so no matter which method you use to update
an older system you should r
>
> > Marko Lerota wrote:
> > > In http://www.freebsd.org/releases/7.0R/announce.html says
> > >
> > > Updating Existing Systems
> > >
> > > > An upgrade of any existing system to FreeBSD 7.0-RELEASE constitutes
> > > > a major version upgrade, so no matter which method you use to update
> >
> Marko Lerota wrote:
> > In http://www.freebsd.org/releases/7.0R/announce.html says
> >
> > Updating Existing Systems
> >
> > > An upgrade of any existing system to FreeBSD 7.0-RELEASE constitutes
> > > a major version upgrade, so no matter which method you use to update
> > > an older syste
Bakul Shah wrote:
As I've tried to explain, the difficulty is when you start recompiling
parts of them, e.g. a shared library used by other ports.
Understood.
Hmm... If prior to any recompile such a shared lib was copied
to a compat dir (based on the most recent shared lib *it*
depends on), p
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 01:57:32 +0100 Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bakul Shah wrote:
> > On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:54:55 +0100 Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> portupgrade -faP requests to reinstall everything from precompiled
> >> packages. It will only fall back to compil
Marko Lerota wrote:
> In http://www.freebsd.org/releases/7.0R/announce.html says
>
> Updating Existing Systems
>
> > An upgrade of any existing system to FreeBSD 7.0-RELEASE constitutes
> > a major version upgrade, so no matter which method you use to update
> > an older system you should rein
Bakul Shah wrote:
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:54:55 +0100 Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
portupgrade -faP requests to reinstall everything from precompiled
packages. It will only fall back to compiling them locally if the
package is unavailable (e.g. for legal reasons).
Second, the rea
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:54:55 +0100 Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> portupgrade -faP requests to reinstall everything from precompiled
> packages. It will only fall back to compiling them locally if the
> package is unavailable (e.g. for legal reasons).
>
> Second, the reason for thi
Edwin Groothuis wrote:
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 01:03:31AM +0100, Kris Kennaway wrote:
Edwin Groothuis wrote:
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 12:08:22AM +0100, Marko Lerota wrote:
In http://www.freebsd.org/releases/7.0R/announce.html says
Updating Existing Systems
An upgrade of any existing system t
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 01:03:31AM +0100, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> Edwin Groothuis wrote:
> >On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 12:08:22AM +0100, Marko Lerota wrote:
> >>In http://www.freebsd.org/releases/7.0R/announce.html says
> >>
> >>Updating Existing Systems
> >>
> >>>An upgrade of any existing system to
Edwin Groothuis wrote:
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 12:08:22AM +0100, Marko Lerota wrote:
In http://www.freebsd.org/releases/7.0R/announce.html says
Updating Existing Systems
An upgrade of any existing system to FreeBSD 7.0-RELEASE constitutes
a major version upgrade, so no matter which method yo
Nothing to stop you using packages if you so wish.
- Original Message -
From: "Marko Lerota" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
# portupgrade -faP
etc...
Why!!! Do you know how much time I have to spend with my PC to reinstall
all of this programs from ports? Only openoffice takes one day! And where
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Marko Lerota wrote:
> In http://www.freebsd.org/releases/7.0R/announce.html says
>
> Updating Existing Systems
>
>> An upgrade of any existing system to FreeBSD 7.0-RELEASE constitutes
>> a major version upgrade, so no matter which method you use t
Marko Lerota wrote:
In http://www.freebsd.org/releases/7.0R/announce.html says
Updating Existing Systems
An upgrade of any existing system to FreeBSD 7.0-RELEASE constitutes
a major version upgrade, so no matter which method you use to update
an older system you should reinstall any ports yo
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 12:08:22AM +0100, Marko Lerota wrote:
> In http://www.freebsd.org/releases/7.0R/announce.html says
>
> Updating Existing Systems
>
> > An upgrade of any existing system to FreeBSD 7.0-RELEASE constitutes
> > a major version upgrade, so no matter which method you use to u
On Feb 28, 2008, at 3:08 PM, Marko Lerota wrote:
In http://www.freebsd.org/releases/7.0R/announce.html says
Updating Existing Systems
An upgrade of any existing system to FreeBSD 7.0-RELEASE constitutes
a major version upgrade, so no matter which method you use to update
an older system you sho
No one is forcing you to upgrade.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-freebsd-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marko Lerota
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 6:08 PM
> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
> Subject: Upgrading to 7.0 - stupid re
In http://www.freebsd.org/releases/7.0R/announce.html says
Updating Existing Systems
> An upgrade of any existing system to FreeBSD 7.0-RELEASE constitutes
> a major version upgrade, so no matter which method you use to update
> an older system you should reinstall any ports you have installed
60 matches
Mail list logo
