Install of pkg fuse-ntfs fails because of undefined symbol in pkg!?!
scratch65535 at att.net
scratch65535 at att.net
Fri Feb 10 13:21:02 UTC 2017
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 10:09:35 -0500, Steve Wills
<swills at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
>On 02/08/2017 12:34, scratch65535 at att.net wrote:
>> I *did* check for bug reports. I did a search on "utimenstat"
>> and found exactly one, which had been withdrawn as not being a
>> But it *is* a bug. It's a bug on several levels, the most
>> significant of which is that the overly frantic schedule makes
>> versions have the lifespan of a mayfly. And we're told "just
>> upgrade", as though there's some physical law mandating the
>Ports and packages are maintained on the assumption that the user is
>using a supported version of the OS. We didn't decide when to end
>support for 10.1 or 10.2. How long after the end of life for 10.1 would
>you have ports maintain support?
A good rule of thumb from industry in the case of major software
would be "forever", meaning until it's very unlikely that anyone
is still using it because of hardware obsolescence, etc.
"Support" for out-of-rev software need be no more than disc
space, if that's all that can be afforded. I'd have been happy
to get that package I thought I would get--it never occurred to
me that the packages for 10.2 would all be summarily purged!
>> There are people for whom the system is a tool, not a hobby. They
>> don't want to have to rebuild their tools any more than
>> carpenters want to replace their hammers and levels every year or
>If you've having trouble upgrading that are causing you to rebuild, then
>that's a different issue, but not one I can help with. It doesn't change
>the fact that we don't support unsupported versions of the OS.
But the transition to "unsupported" is not a function of physical
law. It's a human choice, and can be revisited any time people
are willing to do so.
Why is Linux able to so easily replace FreeBSD? The desktop is
gone. Servers are going. The new AMD chips are being tested
against Intel on Linux boxes, not FreeBSD boxes. FreeBSD is
being made obsolete.
This not happening by accident. And it won't stop by itself.
>> For those people (I'm one) long version lifespans and bug-free
>> operation is a much bigger desideratum than winning the secret
>> race (I presume there is some kind of secret race going on, since
>> otherwise the crazy scheduling makes No Sense At All). I can't
>> work out what the strategy for winning is, if there is a
>> strategy, but I do know that it's not working. Linux has all
>> but won already, and that's sickening.
>Ports are maintained by volunteers. If you would like to volunteer to
>support branches for longer periods of time, let's talk about that.
I'm a customer. I'm one of the people for whom the dev and
porting work is supposedly being done.
The problem is the lunatic turnover rate. It prevents things
from being done in any kind of measured way. It's all
firefighting, all the time. That guarantees that things fall
through the cracks, tempers get short, and people burn out. Who
>> I've been using the o/s since before v2 (I still have the cds)
>> and have watched FreeBSD go from being the leading Unix on Intel
>> boxes to all-but-dead. I don't know how to express how saddened
>> I feel about that.
>I think ports are really improving and the rate of improvement is going up.
Then why is Linux everywhere and fBSD is circling the drain?
More information about the freebsd-ports