Install of pkg fuse-ntfs fails because of undefined symbol in pkg!?!

C Hutchinson portmaster at
Sun Feb 12 21:56:38 UTC 2017

On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 07:31:10 -0500 <scratch65535 at> wrote

> On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 17:46:15 +0100, Kurt Jaeger <lists at>
> wrote:
> >Hi!
> Moin! 
> >
> >> On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 17:26:00 +0100, Kurt Jaeger wrote
> >> >Getting the ports/pkg tree moving with the velocity necessary
> >> >to cope with the fast-changing world, sometimes things break
> >> >and we all try to prevent this. Sometimes, mistakes happen...
> >> 
> >> But it's the velocity that's the problem, Kurt.  
> >
> >While I very much sympathize with "The world rotates too fast,
> >I want to get off", for me it looks like as a project we do
> >not have alternatives.
> Why not?  What would happen to fBSD that's not already happening?
> Why aren't people asking what's going on and how to turn it
> around?  Could it be because they're too busy being busy?
> There's a well-known problem that kills ground-attack pilots all
> the time (or it used to; maybe they have safety features built
> into the aircraft now).  They become fixated on their target, and
> they bring the nose of their aircraft further and further down to
> keep the target in their sights.  Which causes them to fly right
> into the ground!
> Fixation is a problem in other fields, too.
> >
> >> Do you know of anyone who has successfully defended, or even
> >> tried to defend, the current manic pace of revision and
> >> obsoleting?
> >
> >Is it defense, if we see many projects (open source etc)
> >shorten their cycle time (e.g. php7), because they see the need to
> >add features or patch security issues (and breaks APIs/ABIs doing either) ?
> It seems more like an excuse than a defence, to me.  Is it
> pushing Linux back?  If not, what *would* push Linux back?  Why
> is Linux so successful even though fBSD is older and better, and
> was once completely dominant in the space?  What are the Linux
> projects doing that we're not?
> >
> >And if we try to keep up and for this, if we add features to the
> >ports framework ? I'm doing this (application mgmt on unix systems)
> >for a long time now, a quarter of a century, and I see no viable
> >alternative in the problem space we work in.
> I trained as a clinical psychologist, not in computer science or
> ee.   We learned that adults are notoriously resistant to change
This is a very astute observation. One I recognized as an absolute;
some two and a half decades ago, myself. Well done!

> (not that we hadn't noticed that ourselves, most of us, but it
> was nice to have it confirmed "officially").  
> But change is possible, even for adults.  The key to change is to
> realise, at the gut level, that change *is* possible, that things
> need *not* always be as they are now.   That life really truly
> can be better. 
> That's really hard for most adults to believe.  The prospect of
> change is terrifying because it threatens us with loss of
> control.  
The largest fail in recent history, in this regard was pkg(8).
Not that pkg itself is bad, per se; but in the way it was
"presented". Or rather "dropped" like a bomb. Without having
been "vetted" prior, by those that would now be /required/ to use
it -- not an option.

The "magic bullet" is when the "change" is perceived as being a
change they "wanted", or "asked for".
FreeBSD has seen *many* requests for change(s) over the years.
Most of which are dismissed, ignored, or outright rejected.
Even tho many were variations of the same.
Solution? /Listen/ to those requests. Perform a pattern match
to discover similarities in requests, and propose what could
be perceived "feasible" implementations of those requests. Then
implement them, and you'll gain a enthusiastic following.

> But we don't have to lose control.  We can change a bit at a
> time, staying in control all the while.  All we need is the will
> to do it.  (The world is in the mess it's in because, it seems,
> most of those who have the will to change use it for malignant
> purposes --the last several US presidents being cases in point)
> >
> >I also see that this very fast speed uses up huge amounts of
> >person power and compute resources (all those folks rebuilding
> >many ports in their build hosts). But it's not easy to stop off
> >this planet 8-}
> I would never urge that we jump off the planet.  It'd be too hard
> to breathe outside the atmospheric envelope.  :-)
> But that doesn't mean we're currently doing the right things to
> regain share from Linux and save FreeBSD.

This is NOT, nor has never has been a "Linux vs BSD" thing. Linux
is not UNIX. Ahem... Let me rephrase that;
This is NOT a Linux vs BSD thing, anymore than a Windows vs BSD
This is an "Operating System of choice" thing. If your OS provides
what a majority of what people need, and want; you're successful,
and popular. It's as simple as that.

That's all I have to say in this matter. I generally shy away
from such discussions. As history proves that they devolve into
a "bikeshed(tm)"
         -- PHK.

Over, and out.


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list