Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 18:53:09 +0100 From: John Marino <freebsdml@marino.st> To: Michelle Sullivan <michelle@sorbs.net> Cc: Roger Marquis <marquis@roble.com>, FreeBSD Mailing List <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Removing documentation Message-ID: <56C21085.3020809@marino.st> In-Reply-To: <56C20B76.805@sorbs.net> References: <56C1E579.30303@marino.st> <20160215165952.6199743BFA@shepard.synsport.net> <56C2075A.5000409@marino.st> <56C20B76.805@sorbs.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2/15/2016 6:31 PM, Michelle Sullivan wrote: > Actually it made perfect sense... (for a change) ... make pkgng the > default on 10.x and allow people to use either on 8.4 and 9.x ... this > made perfect sense... Make base packaging using similar/same tools as > part of 11+ makes perfect sense... It might make sense if you had zero knowledge of how ports are developed and made the assumption they are synchronized to three base branches. They aren't. One ports tree, developed independently. > ....No, though... arbitrary date set, f**k real users, f**k whether it > works or not, because we need people to put it in production so we can > test our buggy software... Even with asterisks, I'm not happy with swear words like this on a mail list. Can we keep it cleaner? > Line drawn - at the next major version... that's an easy win... people > can complain, but they can't argue that it isn't a good decision because > they can choose... upgrade/don't upgrade... we didn't get the chance to > choose ... it was forced down peoples necks... working or not. > Fortunately I was able to get the old system working again... and in > fact keep it up to date until about 3 months ago... (and only stopped > there because I have other things to do - will go back to it again later.) See above, ports isn't tied to base releases and never has been AFAIK. There were technical options to extend the time, the simplest being: Don't update the ports tree! Bring in security updates manually is a lot easier than migrating 50 servers and it's not that big a deal for a few months, and as I said, I am sure your organisation could have paid a reasonable amount for somebody to do it for you. > Well I didn't know - despite following the conversations on the public > lists - until 3 weeks before the event that the change was going to > deliberately and irrevocably break the old systems... again... As I said, I sympathize, but are you really going to point the fingers at others before yourself here? > Dunno about Roger, but I am and I had been campaigning internally about > getting support for FreeBSD as a platform and support for the foundation > in the way of devs and/or cash... that is *never* going to happen now. > Money has been allocated and sent to Redhat (nothing to do with me, but > the pkgng debacle left me without legs to argue the case, so the > decision makers stuffed that.) And the next linux-related fiasco experiences can be traced back to a rash and technically questionable decision by all involved. Good luck I guess. And what was the cost of the transition and what will be the TCO over the next 10 years? None of that money would have been better spent on the encumbent system. That's really hard to believe. > That I can't (and won't) comment on, but I will tell you that's the > reason all new servers I manage are being installed with CentOS+paid > support contract and not FreeBSD+donation. The bed was made by people, > they can sleep in it. And you probably spent magnitudes more than just getting a consultant to help for a few months for a few hours a month. It's easy to say foundation would have gotten money but harder to believe if they never got a donation in the past when everything was working okay, right? John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?56C21085.3020809>