Fast releases demand binary updates.. (Was: Release schedule
MH at kernel32.de
Thu Jan 12 02:10:38 PST 2006
Jo Rhett wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 01:27:18PM +0100, Marian Hettwer wrote:
>>I'm actually wondering how yahoo for instance handles this situation. To
>>my knowledge, they have several thousand of FreeBSD based servers.
>>Either they are all the same in regards to configuration and version, or
>>they have some other cunning way to solve the issue of patching.
> Yahoo has a very similar implementation to ours from what I grok, but they
> aren't happy about releasing their implementation into the wild so I can't
> say for sure.
a pity. 'cause I bet there would be some nice ideas.
>>Generally speaking: Your statement is true. You don't start writing code
>>without an agreement that the direction choosen is a direction where
>>FreeBSD wants to evolve.
>>However, you (as in, you as a developer) could come up with a proof of
>>concept. Start with an implementation like you would like to have it.
>>And even if it's just a piece of paper and some code.
> Before we plan the invasion of Iraq, how about an agreement on what we're
> trying to accomplish? Like I said, this topic has always been killed
Please stop with these political statements. They have nothing to do
with the topic you're stressing here. Just stop these political
statements, please :)
> because "non-newbies can run make buildworld". So if it's going to get
> shot down quickly then why bother?
Why bother? Because you do see a need for binary updates and you do want
to change something.
So get started with it. Just write a piece of paper (webpage, whatever),
maybe even start coding something. Come up with this paper on
freebsd-arch (like stated by someone else) and see wether you can find
> Frankly, that's pretty much where it has gone. Everyone who cares about
> this has privately mailed me saying "it would be nice" but nobody believes
> that we can get this accepted for inclusion.
Well, I wouldn't be sure. When perl was removed from base and made
optional there was some roaring around too. Nevertheless it was removed
from base and is no longer needed to run FreeBSD.
> I've tried to make the point clear, and ignore the insults and try to keep
> on topic... but it's pretty much a lost point already. Everyone loves to
> say "you're an idiot" or "your ideas [taken out of context] are wrong" etc
> and such forth.
I was following this thread on -current and frankly, I couldn't see any
"you're an idiot" statements.
Prove me wrong ( by copy 'n paste of the statement in addition with the
sender of that mail ).
>>Then start this thread over again, fine tune the concept and hopefully
>>some others will jump aboard and help developing.
>>I would like to, but I do lack knowledge in C. Shell and a wee bit of
>>Perl is fine. Definitly too few knowledge for a project like that :-/
> If it really was a project, just a willingness to test this across a range
> of environments and the ability to do-one-thing-at-a-time and read log
> files would be great assistance. But given zero interest in the project
> expressed so far, this is cart years before horse has evolved.
Then my statement would be again: Yes, I would agree that binary updates
could make updating FreeBSD easier.
However, there are other ways (apart from using make world).
I would think about "make release". This is a way to go. Build your
custom releases and roll 'em out. Granted, using own releases is only
good if you have like one or two architectures (say i386 and amd64).
>>That statement ain't true. If the code solves your problem, fine. If it
>>solves problems of others too, even better. Chances are higher that it
>>doesn't get ignored...
> Code that doesn't solve the problem correctly should be rejected with a
> reason. Ignorance advances nothing. No replies/no updates = ignorance.
> And no commits means the problem isn't solved.
so far, so true.
However, just start your project and ask later on for support.
More information about the freebsd-stable