Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 21:05:56 +0900 From: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com> To: Mike Meyer <mwm@phone.net> Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Build of 3.1-STABLE failing? Message-ID: <36F63224.BC5A9F5A@newsguy.com> References: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9903211445280.414-100000@guru.phone.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mike Meyer wrote: > > If you make regular backups of userland, that represents quite a bit > of work. Since it rebuilds everything in userland, you wind up dumping > all of userland with every backup, so you need to do some kind of > special backup after doing an installworld. Putting it all together, > that's enough work that I wouldn't bother doing it except every 6-8 > weeks. But -RELEASE happens about twice that often. What's the point > of tracking -STABLE under those conditions? What does world installs? /bin /sbin /usr/bin /usr/sbin /usr/lib /usr/libexec /usr/share I might be missing a couple more directories, but that's beside the point. These things should be touched by world, and world alone. You'll notice that ports *don't* touch these directories. So, leave them out of the backup. Well, you might want to keep /usr/lib in. When you restore the backup, you go back to RELEASE (which you did back up), plus all other stuff you installed/modified, and the later libraries, just in case they are needed for the stuff you installed. All the same, next time you installworld you'll be -stable again. > Of course, part of the reason for tracking -STABLE is I want > up-to-date versions of various ports. After all, like most users, I > have a computer so I can run the apps, not the OS. But here we're told > that the ports tree and the OS are tied together - and you shouldn't > try using newer versions of the ports without having the appropriate > underlying OS. Given that /usr/ports was one of the reasons I chose > FreeBSD, not being able to track that closely is a serious hit. What was said is that you need to install the appropriate upgrade package. Sure, track ports only. But if something goes wrong, install the upgrade package *before* complaining. > This all points to one of the most serious problems with the current > release system - that patches seem to be considered impossible. On > commercial OS's, or Linux, you see small distributions that fix a few > things in userland (a security hole in Sendmail being a typical > example). Fixing that is a simple matter of installing that patch and > restarting sendmail on the relevant systems (assuming the patch didn't > do that for you). On the other hand, here I see a discussion of doing > a "point release" instead of a patch. This means that fixing the > problem requires reinstalling the OS for all those systems. Surely, > anyone who runs more than a few systems doesn't do this? Surely, there are a lot of them that do. The two most common methods being installworld over NFS and rdist or similar (Matthew Dillon has a very good utility, which he created for this precise purpose). > > > Just one question - what are "make" and "make install" for, then? > > > > For those who know what they are doing. > > For instance, they can be very handy for developers who know what > > their modifications are doing or not to the source tree. > > You mean - people who go in and edit the userland sources? Nuts - > that's one of the reasons I *started* tracking -STABLE. I kept hoping Why nuts? Why can't these people have their tools? It's not like you don't have *your* tools, it's just that you don't like them (buildworld & installworld). Make is a program for programmers, in first place. > the patches I submitted with pr bin/9429 would show up, as well as > some of the ports I've done and submitted. If you submitted the patches, you better just keep your own tree, with your patches. Whenever the patches reach the tree, the committer will, hopefully, close the PR. > > At the very least, you should have tried "world" before asking the > > question. > > True - it would have avoided a lot of flaming on the list. I might not have paid enough attention, but I saw no one flaming you. I saw a lot of people saying "you should have done make buildworld & make installworld", which could not have been stated in any other way that I can think of (and is the *documented* procedure). You then replied saying that using "make && make install" is what you have always done, to which I then replied that this is why it broke for you. Frankly, what else could we have answered? The source tree broke for you because you did not follow the correct procedure. -- Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS) dcs@newsguy.com dcs@freebsd.org "What happened?" "It moved, sir!" To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?36F63224.BC5A9F5A>