On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 05:31:15PM +0100, Daniel Horecki wrote:
> Lucas Holt writes:
>
> > There is also mirports from MirBSD that is supported on MirBSD,
> > MidnightBSD, and Mac OS X. They also got a pkgsrc port going recently. The
> > problem is that projects have specific needs that other
Lucas Holt writes:
> There is also mirports from MirBSD that is supported on MirBSD, MidnightBSD,
> and Mac OS X. They also got a pkgsrc port going recently. The problem is that
> projects have specific needs that other systems don't have. FreeBSD ports are
> by far the largest and very fast
There is also mirports from MirBSD that is supported on MirBSD, MidnightBSD,
and Mac OS X. They also got a pkgsrc port going recently. The problem is that
projects have specific needs that other systems don't have. FreeBSD ports are
by far the largest and very fast to build. Pkgsrc comes out qu
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
> Maybe sometime we will see a project arise that will be a replacement
> ports/ for more than one BSD, perhaps even extending to Linux, (to
> avoid reinventing of the wheel that must go on with ports skeletal
> structs for each OS) ( maybe
From: Doug Barton
> >> Having things in ports doesn't make them less available. :)
>From "Julian H. Stacey"
> > It didn't used to. It risks it now, since in last months, some
> > ports/ have been targeted by a few rogue commiters purging, who
> > want to toss ports out from one release to anoth
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:29 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
> On 12/13/11 7:49 PM, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
>
> which brings up teh possibility of 1st class ports.. which are kept more as
> part of the system..
> (sorry for sounding like a broken record..)
*jumps back into the fray*
If it's som
On 12/13/11 7:49 PM, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
Hi,
Reference:
From: Doug Barton
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:29:02 -0800
Message-id: <4ee7c39e.6040...@freebsd.org>
Doug Barton wrote:
On 12/11/2011 06:14, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
Doug Barton wrote:
On 12/02/2011 04:35, Adria
Hi,
Reference:
> From: Doug Barton
> Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:29:02 -0800
> Message-id: <4ee7c39e.6040...@freebsd.org>
Doug Barton wrote:
> On 12/11/2011 06:14, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
> > Doug Barton wrote:
> >> On 12/02/2011 04:35, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> >>> I think you're
On 12/11/2011 06:14, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
> Doug Barton wrote:
>> On 12/02/2011 04:35, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>>> I think you're missing the point a little.
>>>
>>> The point is, you have to keep in mind how comfortable people feel
>>> about things, and progress sometimes makes people uncomfortable
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/12/2011 14:30, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 8:03 PM, wrote:
>>
>>> I use CVS (or rather csup) to keep the base system up to date.
>>> I would be perfectly okay with using a different utility -
>>> however, I would strongly
On 12/11/11 08:39, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
"Pedro F. Giffuni" wrote:
Hi Daniel;
--- On Sat, 12/3/11, Daniel Eischen wrote:
...
I would love to mirror the SVN repo in the same way
and have an 'svn' in base, or at least something that
could replace CVS in the above scenario.
I have to say I a
--- Dom 11/12/11, Julian H. Stacey ha scritto:
...
> > I have to say I am surprised by all the people that
> > still use CVS (for their own good reasons).
> >
> > It still would be helpful if cvs users could evaluate
> > OpenCVS: it's been experimental for ages now. It does
> > seem to have some
"Pedro F. Giffuni" wrote:
> Hi Daniel;
>
> --- On Sat, 12/3/11, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> ...
> >
> > I would love to mirror the SVN repo in the same way
> > and have an 'svn' in base, or at least something that
> > could replace CVS in the above scenario.
> >
>
> I have to say I am surprised by
> On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 8:03 PM, wrote:
>
> > I use CVS (or rather csup) to keep the base system up to date. I would
> > be perfectly okay with using a different utility - however, I would
> > strongly prefer that this utility was included in the base system.
>
> CVS != csup.
>
> I wonder how
Doug Barton wrote:
> On 12/02/2011 04:35, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> > I think you're missing the point a little.
> >
> > The point is, you have to keep in mind how comfortable people feel
> > about things, and progress sometimes makes people uncomfortable. I
> > think you should leave these changes ba
On 12/3/11 5:45 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> Just to back up that point: until CVS is completely unused by
> releng (docs, ports are still done via CVS),
Ah - I am indeed mistaken. Not all that surprising.
> it really shouldn't be
> removed from base (no matter how broken or undeveloped it is).
On Dec 5, 2011, at 7:57 AM, Claude Buisson wrote:
> On 12/05/2011 16:28, Tom Evans wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Lowell Gilbert
>> wrote:
>>> Tom Evans writes:
>>>
On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Max Khon wrote:
> CVS != csup.
>
> I wonder how many people will e
On 12/05/2011 16:28, Tom Evans wrote:
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Lowell Gilbert
wrote:
Tom Evans writes:
On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Max Khon wrote:
CVS != csup.
I wonder how many people will express their sentiments about CVS when
they really mean cvsup/csup.
I wasn't going t
Tom Evans writes:
> On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Max Khon wrote:
>> CVS != csup.
>>
>> I wonder how many people will express their sentiments about CVS when
>> they really mean cvsup/csup.
>
> I wasn't going to jump onto this bikeshed, as CVS will not be going
> anywhere any time soon, I am s
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Lowell Gilbert
wrote:
> Tom Evans writes:
>
>> On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Max Khon wrote:
>>> CVS != csup.
>>>
>>> I wonder how many people will express their sentiments about CVS when
>>> they really mean cvsup/csup.
>>
>> I wasn't going to jump onto this bi
.. they'll work the same way things w/ src work at the moment, which I
believe is:
* stuff is in svn;
* svn2cvs runs;
* cvsup mirrors the cvs repository;
* users use cvsup against that.
So this is a non-issue. :)
Adrian
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Replying to a "random" message in this thread
On 12/05/2011 13:49, Tom Evans wrote:
On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Max Khon wrote:
CVS != csup.
I wonder how many people will express their sentiments about CVS when
they really mean cvsup/csup.
I wasn't going to jump onto this bikeshed, as C
On Mon, 5 Dec 2011, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 12/4/11 9:21 PM, Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Dec 4, 2011, at 7:42 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 12/4/11 3:36 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
This seems too reasonable a suggestion, but, as always, the devil
is in the details. There will be long. painful disc
On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Max Khon wrote:
> CVS != csup.
>
> I wonder how many people will express their sentiments about CVS when
> they really mean cvsup/csup.
I wasn't going to jump onto this bikeshed, as CVS will not be going
anywhere any time soon, I am sure.
I use cvs, rather than cs
On 12/4/11 9:21 PM, Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Dec 4, 2011, at 7:42 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 12/4/11 3:36 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
This seems too reasonable a suggestion, but, as always, the devil
is in the details. There will be long. painful discussions (and
arguments) about what to remove
On Dec 4, 2011, at 7:42 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
> On 12/4/11 3:36 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> This seems too reasonable a suggestion, but, as always, the devil
>>> is in the details. There will be long. painful discussions (and
>>> arguments) about what to remove from the base to the new structu
>>> BIND OTOH is something different.
>> what's bind? :)
> http://www.isc.org/software/bind
see the smily?
bind is not in my install set. if i need an on-system cache, i use
unbound.
randy
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.fre
Le 05/12/2011 03:00, Randy Bush a écrit :
BIND OTOH is something different.
what's bind? :)
http://www.isc.org/software/bind
Regards,
Cyrille Lefevre
--
mailto:cyrille.lefevre-li...@laposte.net
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http:/
On Sun, 04 Dec 2011 16:42:04 PST Julian Elischer wrote:
> On 12/4/11 3:36 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> >
> > i suspect that my install pattern is similar to others
> >o custom install so i can split filesystems the way i prefer,
> > enabling net& ssh
> >o pkg_add -r { bash, rsync, emacs-
> BIND OTOH is something different.
what's bind? :)
randy
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Am 05.12.2011 um 00:36 schrieb Randy Bush:
>> This seems too reasonable a suggestion, but, as always, the devil
>> is in the details. There will be long. painful discussions (and
>> arguments) about what to remove from the base to the new structure
>> and what things currently NOT in the base sho
On 12/4/11 3:36 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
This seems too reasonable a suggestion, but, as always, the devil
is in the details. There will be long. painful discussions (and
arguments) about what to remove from the base to the new structure
and what things currently NOT in the base should be promoted.
> This seems too reasonable a suggestion, but, as always, the devil
> is in the details. There will be long. painful discussions (and
> arguments) about what to remove from the base to the new structure
> and what things currently NOT in the base should be promoted.
as one with a long list of WITH
On 4. Dec 2011, at 18:07 , C. P. Ghost wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Roman Kurakin wrote:
>> Christian Laursen wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> I use CVS myself from time to time, but I see no need for it to be in base
>>> for that reason.
>>
>> By the way, since there is no way to coun
On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 12/4/2011 12:19 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
>
>> I propose we create a companion directory to src in SVN and cal it
>> "sysports"
>> it uses the ports infrastructure in organization (though may be more
>> hierarchical)
>> but is populated with
On 12/4/2011 12:19 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
> I propose we create a companion directory to src in SVN and cal it
> "sysports"
> it uses the ports infrastructure in organization (though may be more
> hierarchical)
> but is populated with items that have come out of the 'src' tree.
> it is shipped
On 12/3/11 6:40 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
The problem I have with all of this is pretty simple.
With the CVS in base, it's treated like the (mostly) rest of the
system in a stable release - ie, people don't simply keep updating it
to the latest and greatest without some testing. If there are any
c
On Sat, 3 Dec 2011, Doug Barton wrote:
On 12/3/2011 5:03 AM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
The fact that we have so many people who are radically
change-averse, no matter how rational the change; is a bug, not a
feature.
This particular bug is complicated dramatically by the fact that
the majority
On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Roman Kurakin wrote:
> Christian Laursen wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> I use CVS myself from time to time, but I see no need for it to be in base
>> for that reason.
>
> By the way, since there is no way to count +/- I guess the rule "do not
> brake that is working
> or
Christian Laursen wrote:
[...]
I use CVS myself from time to time, but I see no need for it to be in
base for that reason.
By the way, since there is no way to count +/- I guess the rule "do not
brake that is working
or provide a way to do the same" should work. If there is a number of
users o
Christian Laursen wrote:
On 12/04/11 01:25, Doug Barton wrote:
[snip]
Replying to a somewhat random mail in this thread.
Has anyone considerede that the people actually using CVS for getting
the source might be somewhat overrepresented on freebsd-current?
Probably you are right. I guess I wou
I understand that this is not my business at all :)
But anyway, IMHO, you should take GPL-free effort as an example.
When you visit http://wiki.freebsd.org/GPLinBase you easily can see what
going to be dumped, why, and with what it's going to be replaced.
What I mean exactly - throw emails to mail
On 12/04/11 01:25, Doug Barton wrote:
[snip]
Replying to a somewhat random mail in this thread.
Has anyone considerede that the people actually using CVS for getting
the source might be somewhat overrepresented on freebsd-current?
If I had to guess, the average user is using either freebsd-u
Jase Thew wrote:
On 03/12/2011 14:48, Roman Kurakin wrote:
Jase Thew wrote:
On 03/12/2011 09:21, Roman Kurakin wrote:
[SNIP]
You are right in general, except one small factor. We are talking
about
bootstrap.
CVS is used by many as the one of the ways to get the sources to the
freshly
in
Doug Barton wrote:
On 12/3/2011 1:21 AM, Roman Kurakin wrote:
Doug Barton wrote:
[...] The fact that we have so many people who are radically
change-averse, no matter how rational the change; is a bug, not a
feature.
This particular bug is complicated dramatically by the fact that
the
On 04/12/2011 09:08, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
It's not unthinkable. However, IMHO we're then gradually edging closer
to various Linux distros that need lots of packages installed to do
anything useful. And that, of course, brings up the question - why not
just use Linux in the first place? For
>From Mehmet Erol Sanliturk :
> Supplying only a console-mode FreeBSD as a release is making FreeBSD
> unusable for
> peoples who they are not computing experts .
> To allow less experienced people to use FreeBSD easily , it is necessary to
> include a
> selected ports/packages into release di
> I want to ask some serious questions here, because I genuinely want to
> understand your thought process.
>
> 1. Do you install *any* ports/packages on a new system before you update
> the source?
Answering just for myself here...
Going back a bit, in many cases I didn't need to install any pa
On 03/12/2011 14:48, Roman Kurakin wrote:
Jase Thew wrote:
On 03/12/2011 09:21, Roman Kurakin wrote:
[SNIP]
You are right in general, except one small factor. We are talking about
bootstrap.
CVS is used by many as the one of the ways to get the sources to the
freshly
installed system to r
On 4 December 2011 11:59, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk wrote:
> Supplying only a console-mode FreeBSD as a release is making FreeBSD
> unusable for
> peoples who they are not computing experts .
And the PCBSD crowd have stepped up to fill this gap.
So we're free to concentrate on doing what we're good
On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 9:40 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> The problem I have with all of this is pretty simple.
>
> With the CVS in base, it's treated like the (mostly) rest of the
> system in a stable release - ie, people don't simply keep updating it
> to the latest and greatest without some testin
The problem I have with all of this is pretty simple.
With the CVS in base, it's treated like the (mostly) rest of the
system in a stable release - ie, people don't simply keep updating it
to the latest and greatest without some testing. If there are any
critical bugs or security flaws, they're ba
On 12/3/2011 1:21 AM, Roman Kurakin wrote:
> Doug Barton wrote:
>> [...] The fact that we have so many people who are radically
>> change-averse, no matter how rational the change; is a bug, not a
>> feature.
>>
>> This particular bug is complicated dramatically by the fact that
>> the majority vi
On 12/3/2011 5:03 AM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
>>> The fact that we have so many people who are radically
>>> change-averse, no matter how rational the change; is a bug, not a
>>> feature.
>>>
>>> This particular bug is complicated dramatically by the fact that
>>> the majority view seems to lean
On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Michiel Boland wrote:
> On 12/03/2011 17:29, Sean M. Collins wrote:
> [...]
>
>> all the development work is being done on SVN
>> and then is exported back to CVS, if I am not mistaken[1].
>
> [...]
>
> Aren't ports still updated with CVS?
Just to back up that
On 12/03/2011 17:29, Sean M. Collins wrote:
[...]
all the development work is being done on SVN
and then is exported back to CVS, if I am not mistaken[1].
[...]
Aren't ports still updated with CVS?
Cheers
Michiel
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org maili
Hi Daniel;
--- On Sat, 12/3/11, Daniel Eischen wrote:
...
>
> I would love to mirror the SVN repo in the same way
> and have an 'svn' in base, or at least something that
> could replace CVS in the above scenario.
>
I have to say I am surprised by all the people that
still use CVS (for their own
On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 1:21 AM, Roman Kurakin wrote:
> Doug Barton wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>> The fact that we have so many people who are radically change-averse, no
>> matter how rational the change; is a bug, not a feature.
>>
>> This particular bug is complicated dramatically by the fact that the
>
Max Khon wrote:
Rik,
On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Roman Kurakin wrote:
The fact that we have so many people who are radically change-averse, no
matter how rational the change; is a bug, not a feature.
This particular bug is complicated dramatically by the fact that the
majority view se
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Max Khon wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I know that it is too early to speak about this, but I would like the
> dust in the mailing lists to settle down before real actions can be
> taken.
>
> As soon as ports/ (and doc/) are moved to SVN I do not see any
> compelling reasons
On Sat, 3 Dec 2011, Max Khon wrote:
Hello!
On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 8:03 PM, wrote:
I use CVS (or rather csup) to keep the base system up to date. I would
be perfectly okay with using a different utility - however, I would
strongly prefer that this utility was included in the base system.
C
On 12/2/11 4:27 AM, Max Khon wrote:
> In my opinion it is just another piece of bitrot that resides in the
> base system for no real reasons.
I agree, especially since all the development work is being done on SVN
and then is exported back to CVS, if I am not mistaken[1]. We've done
the hard part,
Max Khon wrote:
> As soon as ports/ (and doc/) are moved to SVN I do not see any
> compelling reasons for keeping CVS in the base system.
> Those who still use it for development can install ports/devel/opencvs
Rather ports/devel/cvs-devel. Maybe we still need a regular cvs
port.
--
Christian
Hello!
On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 8:03 PM, wrote:
> I use CVS (or rather csup) to keep the base system up to date. I would
> be perfectly okay with using a different utility - however, I would
> strongly prefer that this utility was included in the base system.
CVS != csup.
I wonder how many peop
Rik,
On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Roman Kurakin wrote:
>> The fact that we have so many people who are radically change-averse, no
>> matter how rational the change; is a bug, not a feature.
>>
>> This particular bug is complicated dramatically by the fact that the
>> majority view seems to l
Jase Thew wrote:
On 03/12/2011 09:21, Roman Kurakin wrote:
Doug Barton wrote:
[...]
The fact that we have so many people who are radically
change-averse, no
matter how rational the change; is a bug, not a feature.
This particular bug is complicated dramatically by the fact that the
majority
> > The fact that we have so many people who are radically change-averse, no
> > matter how rational the change; is a bug, not a feature.
> >
> > This particular bug is complicated dramatically by the fact that the
> > majority view seems to lean heavily towards "If I use it, it must be the
> > def
Doug Barton wrote:
[...]
The fact that we have so many people who are radically change-averse, no
matter how rational the change; is a bug, not a feature.
This particular bug is complicated dramatically by the fact that the
majority view seems to lean heavily towards "If I use it, it must be the
On 12/02/2011 04:35, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> I think you're missing the point a little.
>
> The point is, you have to keep in mind how comfortable people feel
> about things, and progress sometimes makes people uncomfortable. I
> think you should leave these changes bake for a while and let people
>
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 8:36 AM, Diane Bruce wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 04:27:34PM +0700, Max Khon wrote:
> > Hello!
> ...
> > As soon as ports/ (and doc/) are moved to SVN I do not see any
> > compelling reasons for keeping CVS in the base system.
>
> Well. We _could_ replace it with SCCS.
On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 04:27:34PM +0700, Max Khon wrote:
> Hello!
...
> As soon as ports/ (and doc/) are moved to SVN I do not see any
> compelling reasons for keeping CVS in the base system.
Well. We _could_ replace it with SCCS.
--
- d...@freebsd.org d...@db.net http://www.db.net/~db
Why le
I think you're missing the point a little.
The point is, you have to keep in mind how comfortable people feel
about things, and progress sometimes makes people uncomfortable. I
think you should leave these changes bake for a while and let people
get comfortable with the changing status quo.
Adr
Peter,
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On 2011-Dec-02 16:27:34 +0700, Max Khon wrote:
>>I know that it is too early to speak about this, but I would like the
>>dust in the mailing lists to settle down before real actions can be
>>taken.
>
> I'd agree that it's still too ea
On 2011-Dec-02 16:27:34 +0700, Max Khon wrote:
>I know that it is too early to speak about this, but I would like the
>dust in the mailing lists to settle down before real actions can be
>taken.
I'd agree that it's still too early.
>As soon as ports/ (and doc/) are moved to SVN I do not see any
Max Khon wrote:
Hello!
I know that it is too early to speak about this, but I would like the
dust in the mailing lists to settle down before real actions can be
taken.
As soon as ports/ (and doc/) are moved to SVN I do not see any
compelling reasons for keeping CVS in the base system.
Those who
Hello!
I know that it is too early to speak about this, but I would like the
dust in the mailing lists to settle down before real actions can be
taken.
As soon as ports/ (and doc/) are moved to SVN I do not see any
compelling reasons for keeping CVS in the base system.
Those who still use it for
76 matches
Mail list logo
