HTTPS on freebsd.org, git, reproducible builds
freebsd at edvax.de
Sat Sep 19 16:47:13 UTC 2015
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 16:32:48 +0300, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 03:15:17PM +0200, Polytropon wrote:
> > On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 15:50:23 +0300, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote:
> > > On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 12:10:36AM +0200, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> > >
> > > > Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw at zxy.spb.ru> writes:
> > > > > freebsd-update builds is inreproducible by the freebsd-update-server bug[s].
> > > >
> > > > freebsd-update will most likely be gone in 11.
> > >
> > > What is planed for replacement?
> > As far as I could understand, pkg will deal with the components
> > comprising the OS in the same manner as it does for the ports
> > collection. So the kernel, the userland, the sources and so on
> > will "become packages" for pkg to install or upgrade. This is
> > a similar approach to common package management on Linux, except
> > that Linux (as a term to summarize all the many distributions)
> > doesn't have an OS ("the base OS") per se.
> This is very bad.
Don't worry. The OS will still be maintained by the FreeBSD team.
And the components which the OS is composed of will probably not
be separated into hundreds of separate packages (as it is in
Linux - where the distribution creators decide which packages
belong to a base install, like, which package installer, which
shell, X or no X, and so on).
In the end, it might look like there are few additional packages
that will be installed: sys_bin, sys_src, sys_ports and so on.
An update you perform with freebsd-update will then be an update
on the sys_* packages with pkg, leading to a binarily upgraded
operating system. You then _can_ upgrade your ports collection,
or you can leave it as is. This is the advantage of FreeBSD:
The OS and the additionally installed (3rd party) software are
beging dealt with independently.
And this is good. :-)
> > You can already see this kind of development: The documentation
> > has become a package, and the package manager itself is a
> > package (separated from the OS, which only contains a bootstrap
> > loader for the real program). Finally, the installation process
> > could become a task of "pkg install", instead of "tar xf". And
> > a unification of the infrastructures could lead to additional
> > benefits (only _one_ system for both components - OS and ports).
> I am have many troubles with this way in Linux.
> Kernel and userland versions mismatch.
> glibc version incompatible with rpm.
> pkunzip.zip problem.
> And etc.
I know what you're refering to. :-)
On Linux, an "upgrade everything" process might involve a kernel
or a system library update not properly being dealt with in
"userland" (if I may abuse the term in this context). Now you
have a system that won't boot anymore, and you might not even
be able to reach a kind of maintenance mode (like FreeBSD's
single-user mode with /rescue) because somehow your fallback
kernel and libraries got deleted...
Of course FreeBSD also can run into this kind of problem, but
the OS is always consistent. An upgrade does _not_ break the
OS. It _might_ break ports. During the course of -STABLE, this
usually does not happen (because the interfaces are stable).
That's why you always see the advice to recompile (or reinstall)
your ports when you move to a new major version, leaving the
path of -STABLE.
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
More information about the freebsd-questions