Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 11:42:52 -0800 (PST) From: Mike Meyer <mwm@phone.net> To: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Build of 3.1-STABLE failing? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9903221117230.414-100000@guru.phone.net> In-Reply-To: <36F63224.BC5A9F5A@newsguy.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 22 Mar 1999, Daniel C. Sobral wrote: > 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. You're missing /usr/games (ok, we can live without that...), /usr/include (which not working is why my make break), /usr/libdata parts of /usr/share, /boot and /modules (and again, maybe more). If you read the handbook on backups, you'll note that the recommended backup tool is dump - because it's the only thing that does the job right. Unfortunately, it doesn't have a way to exclude directories. That means your new step is to chflags over all those things. I've thought about pushing /usr/local off onto another file system, and then ont backing up /usr, other than level 0s. Roto (with /var on another file system already) is small enough not to be a problem. > > 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. I'm pretty sure that what was said was that you should only use the ports tree that came with the CD-ROM (i.e. - the -RELEASE ports tree) with that CD-ROM, and you should track -STABLE if you wanted to track the ports tree. However, even doing that can still lead to broken binaries with the recommended regimine. More in the next message. > > 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). Given that you set INSTALL to "install -C" in make.conf, that should work reasonably well. There's at least one other problem, though (again, see the next message). > > > > 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). "Nuts" because the reason stated was exactly what I *was* doing. I was using make & make install to build & install my changes to the source tree. > Make is a program for programmers, in first place. Right. Sounds like my kind of tool.... > > 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. Which sounds like "don't bother tracking -STABLE, just track -RELEASE". After all, what I was doing was to make update, reinstall my patches, then do the build. > > > 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. Most people did just that. No problem. The rest was just par for this list - condescending and insulting. <mike 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?Pine.BSF.4.05.9903221117230.414-100000>