Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD ?

[H]

On Monday 11 June 2012 20:59 Chuck Swiger wrote:
> Hi, Dave--
> 
> On Jun 11, 2012, at 4:35 PM, Dave Hayes wrote:
> [ ... ]
> 
> > Do I have this wrong? Anyone see a problem with this picture?
> > What can we do to "just upgrade" in a safe fashion when we want to?
> 
> Two things help tremendously:
> 
> #1: Have working backups.  If you run into a problem, roll back the
> system to a working state.  If you cannot restore a working system
> easily, fix your backup solution until you can rollback easily.
> 
> #2: Have a package-building box and test builds before installing
> new package builds to other boxes.  Your downtime for upgrades
> to the rest of your boxes become minimized.
> 
> Regards,


of course it helps ...

but please do not forget that most people just want their desktop up to date 
and have a working kde (or any other) environment

I believe the ports tree simply must? should? be seen as it is, partially good 
working, and partially a jorney to very dark places , depends on which ports 
and how many  you have installed 

in any case it is for somebody who knows what he does and can find his way out, 
or is courageous, a "normal desktop user" probably is not able to upgrade kde4 
properly and ends up with an unusable machine



On Monday 11 June 2012 20:20 Dave Hayes wrote:
> Rainer Duffner <rainer at ultra-secure.de> writes:
> > Sometimes, options only make sense in context of the selection of
> > options of other ports and it thus may no be easily explainable in one
> > line.
> 
> I don't understand Are you saying this is a reason not to document what
> these options do?


both here deepen the "lead into the dark" theory


On Sunday 10 June 2012 14:10 O. Hartmann wrote:
> "portmaster" does even more damage. Sometimed a port reels in some newly
> updates, a port gets deleted. if on of the to be updated prerquisits
> fail, the port in question isn't there anymore.


this is caused of ports tree's install script maior logic failure, BTW by 
portmaster AND portupgrade and it happens quite often, 

as already commented, nobody sits in front of the screen and watch the compile 
process so this problems go under at first sight

I think, correcting this, would help a lot and may solve a lot of existing 
[hidden] problems. 

I see only one way, having a complete package collection for easy upgrade

most of you do not like it, but you must look at the competitors, Fedoras 
upgrade system works, user do not need the newest features and none of them 
are essential for a desktop to work properly

of course the package collection needs then something similar to portversion, 
but not based on ports tree versions, in order to find available updates

who then wants to customize or learn or who dares, can use the ports tree

after all I guess any further effort on ports goes nowhere because it depends 
at the end on the maintainer and/or committer and people use to fail, that is 
so and nobody can change that. 

Of course It would be nice to find this "eval" behaviour of deleting 
accidentially installed ports corrected

what is worth working on is a complete package collection and a propper update 
tool for it


Hans





-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/attachments/20120612/0217129f/attachment.pgp