BSDstats Statistics for Sept, 2007 ... 12 769 Hosts Reported In

Marc G. Fournier scrappy at
Tue Oct 16 17:19:29 PDT 2007

Hash: SHA1

- --On Tuesday, October 16, 2007 22:38:53 +0100 Miguel Lopes Santos Ramos 
<miguel at> wrote:

>> From: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy at>
> [...]
>> Actually, so far this month, they've gone up 0.3% (and its only middle of
>> month) ... it does fluctuate from month to month ...
> Just out of curiosity, on what criteria do you clean up your list? Maybe
> you're cleaning it up too often, no?

Clean up our list?

> Clearly bsdstats is reaching stability. But consider that when you have a port
> update, you don't know if it was the program which was changed or just the
> installer.

I've tried to make any 'script changes' result in a version change, while 
'installer' changes are a PortRevision ... I just screwed that up by up'ng 
portrevision when I did the reporting speed up change to the script :(

> You have just commited another set of changes. I respect your decision of
> commiting the changes.
> On the other hand, I'm also not too keen on ports which require user
> intervention on install, because of batch installs and upgrades.

Actually, the Makefile was long ago extended to *not* be interactive on either 
BATCH or PATCH_BUILDING installs ... and, after the initial install, unless 
you've wipe'd out either your /etc/periodic.conf or /etc/rc.cofn files, will 
never (or should never) ask you any more questions ... the only time that 
*that* has ever changed was when I added the interactive 'do you want to enable 
in /etc/rc.conf?' to the installer ...

We have tried to cover *most* concerns that ppl have brought up ...

> I mean, we all have to do it for such basic things such as xdm or linux
> compatibility. If every FreeBSD user is "required" to do such configuration
> changes for those basic ports, why not for bsdstats?

There are actually other ports that are interactive in nature, and more often 
then bsdstats ... install postfix sometime, and then upgrade it?  Every time 
you upgrade it, it will ask you if you want to enable it ...

> When we, users, see a port changing, we do not know if it is only the install
> which changed or the program behaviour which changed.
> Certainly the install has changed behaviour, and that is troublesome for
> portupgrades done in batch.

Why?  There has only been one time where a change should have affected 
portupgrade, and that was when we added the /etc/rc.conf interactive ... being 
that, it *should* be totally transparent ...

> Thank you very much, and I certainly don't want to dictate the behaviour
> of bsdstats or its pkg-install script. It was just a complaint, because the
> idea is excellent but it did annoy me a little bit at some particular times.
> It will still annoy me a little bit because of the yes/no in pkg-install;
> maybe its me who should be more criterious before doing my portupgrades...

There are only two times it should *ever* have prompted ppl ... on initial 
*manual* install, and, if they installed before the /etc/rc.conf changes, on a 
portupgrade after that ... beyond that, it should be more transparent then 
installing postfix ...

If you do find a condition where you are being 'held up' on a portupgrade, do 
please let me know, as it shouldn't happen ...

- ----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (
Email . scrappy at                              MSN . scrappy at
Yahoo . yscrappy               Skype:        ICQ . 7615664
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD)


More information about the freebsd-advocacy mailing list