From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Mar 22 6:23:32 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from awfulhak.org (awfulhak.force9.co.uk [195.166.136.63]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 448AE14EF9 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 06:23:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from brian@Awfulhak.org) Received: from keep.lan.Awfulhak.org (keep.lan.Awfulhak.org [172.16.0.8]) by awfulhak.org (8.9.2/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA33694; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 14:22:57 GMT (envelope-from brian@Awfulhak.org) Received: from keep.lan.Awfulhak.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by keep.lan.Awfulhak.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA00589; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 08:25:14 GMT (envelope-from brian@keep.lan.Awfulhak.org) Message-Id: <199903220825.IAA00589@keep.lan.Awfulhak.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 To: Mike Meyer Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Build of 3.1-STABLE failing? In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 21 Mar 1999 15:07:08 PST." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 08:25:14 +0000 From: Brian Somers Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > On Sun, 21 Mar 1999, Daniel C. Sobral wrote: > > > Running stable is preferable than release. But the targets are > > buildworld and installworld. > > 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? Set COPY to -C in /etc/make.conf. > 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. > > 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? AFAIK, FreeBSD is never going to start making these sort of patches. It only leads to the linux ``Sendmail doesn't work ? Ahh, you need to install patch 1.2.3 from some.domain, but I wouldn't do that unless you've first installed patch 1.1 from some.other.place'', or even worse, the Solaris scenario where you can install individual patches or you can install jumbo ``recommended'' or ``y2000'' patches where the patch set that these words represent changes monthly.... > Unfortunately, I don't have a solution, even ignoring the problem of > needing to find extra time to do that work. The main reason for doing > this is to see if anyone else has ideas for a solution. Either use the -C install option as mentioned above or subscribe to the commit lists and decide when you want to rebuild/install an individual program. You can then do a ``make world'' every six weeks or whatever. > > > 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 > the patches I submitted with pr bin/9429 would show up, as well as > some of the ports I've done and submitted. Right - if you've submitted changes, you'll know exactly what knock-on effect they'll have on other parts of the system. You therefore already know where to go before doing the makes (I mean which directory ! ;) > > 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. > > Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour ! To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message