Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 11 May 2015 17:06:47 -0400
From:      Ernie Luzar <luzar722@gmail.com>
To:        Jon Radel <jon@radel.com>
Cc:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: c_rehash pgm missing from 10.1
Message-ID:  <555119E7.7050808@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <55510CED.4040109@radel.com>
References:  <554E3771.5060709@gmail.com> <20150509180516.3471c1ae@curlew.lan> <554E4119.9010206@gmail.com> <5550FCBE.1020909@radel.com> <555105C1.50401@gmail.com> <55510CED.4040109@radel.com>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
Jon Radel wrote:
> On 5/11/15 3:40 PM, Ernie Luzar wrote:
>> Jon Radel wrote:
>>> On 5/9/15 1:17 PM, Ernie Luzar wrote:
>>>>        The real question is why is it not included in the base system?
>>>>
>>> Things might get better if you install source; I swear we discussed 
>>> that in one of the gazillion threads you've kicked off.  Or more 
>>> precisely, the fact that CA.pl is installed in /usr/src along with 
>>> other openssl utilities that come along with the base version of 
>>> openssl.
>>>
>>> --Jon Radel
>>> jon@radel.com
>>>
>> Well I do install a fresh operating system from a .iso file every 
>> time a new RELEASE is published . Its my understanding that the 
>> RELEASE build is from a system maintained from source. So there is no 
>> reason for a .iso installed OS to be any different from  a OS 
>> installed from source.  If there is a difference then the RELEASE 
>> build method has a big problem.  Also missing is c_client and the 
>> CA.pl & CA.sh scripts from a base op install from a .iso cdrom.
> Well, yes, the source of the FreeBSD operating system is indeed source 
> code.
>
> That aside, I said "apples" and you said "but, ORANGES, ORANGES or 
> it's borked."  I am not a big fan of fruit salad.
>
> So....
>
> ... to try again:
>
> When you installed your shiny new FreeBSD off of an .iso image did 
> you, or did you not, request that source code be installed?  This 
> would control whether all the neat little bits of source code were 
> installed in /usr/src.  It turns out that the openssl utility scripts 
> are among those neat little bits.  So whether you have them or not 
> depends on whether you asked for them or not, quite irrespective of 
> whether you realized you were talking about them during install.  
> Specifically, when choosing "optional system components" to install, 
> did you add "src - System source code" to what you installed?  
> Probably not, as you don't have the files, it appears.
>
> --Jon Radel
> jon@radel.com
>
I did not install the source and or ports from the .iso cdrom. I have 
never compiled the system from source and don't intend to ever do that 
and I have been using FreeBSD since 3.0. I am not a bleeding edge kind 
of guy. I install a new RELEASE from .iso and then run my custom config 
script and my system is back to my custom condition within 20 minutes 
from booting the PC with the .iso cdron in the drive. I know my PC can 
not compile the source in that time so why bother. The .iso is suppose 
to be a complete system, so since its missing these openssl things then 
the RELEASE build is broken. You need to drop this source thing as its a 
dead horse. Maybe spending some time to inform the RELEASE build team 
they have problem is a better use of our time. Its not apples or 
oranges, its just a new problem that has come to light..








Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?555119E7.7050808>