Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 05:09:07 +0200 From: Michelle Sullivan <michelle@sorbs.net> To: Andrew Berg <aberg010@my.hennepintech.edu> Cc: pkg@freebsd.org, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Current <current@freebsd.org>, stable@freebsd.org, ports@freebsd.org, "Sam Fourman Jr." <sfourman@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [HEADSUP] pkg(8) is now the only package management tool Message-ID: <540534D3.603@sorbs.net> In-Reply-To: <54053363.2030606@my.hennepintech.edu> References: <20140901195520.GB77917@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <54050D07.4010404@sorbs.net> <CAOFF%2BZ1MOr9-rYbwHYWqBKjMvRPwUnew4jThEoJ_WkoTmwyNsQ@mail.gmail.com> <540522A3.9050506@sorbs.net> <54052891.5000104@my.hennepintech.edu> <54052B1D.3040607@sorbs.net> <54053363.2030606@my.hennepintech.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Andrew Berg wrote: > On 2014.09.01 21:27, Michelle Sullivan wrote: > >> Actually it's an inconvenience for someone like me and you. Not for >> many freebsd users, and certainly not for me 6 months ago if I hadn't >> been writing my own ports.... oh and what was it, 1.3.6 -> 1.3.7? broke >> shit... (badly) ... >> > There were instructions for upgrading 1.3.6 to 1.3.7 alongside a notice that > things would not be good if the instructions were not followed and an > explanation of the issue. I think these kinds of notices need to reach more > people, but of course, that is easier said than done. > BTW, from what I have observed, 1.3.x issues have affected Poudriere users the > most, binary package users a bit less (but still significantly), and pure ports > users very little. > I am a poudriere user... across 8.4, 9.0, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 10.0 on both i386 and amd64 :/ > >>> Also, 9.3 is out and the 9.2 EOL is not far away. Not sure why you would be >>> doing a new install with 9.2. >>> >>> >> Try getting yourself a FreeBSD server at Softlayer... They still >> install 7.x for Christ's sake (amongst others - but last time I checked, >> on new servers, 8.4, 9.0, 9.1, 10.0*) >> > Fair enough. > > >> (not had time - because an EOL message is not a 'It will not >> work after this date' message it is a 'you're unsupported after this >> date and things *might* not work as expected' >> > No, it means "we're not supporting this any more, so we don't care if there are > new vulnerabilities or things stop working". I'm not going to dictate to other > people what their upgrade schedule should be, but anyone running unsupported > versions of software should not have any expectation that the ecosystem around > it will be accommodating. > That's my point - there was a patch waiting to submit that knowingly broke pkg_install at midnight on the day after the EOL... the EOL shouldn't be an EOL - because it was really a 'portsnap after this date before you upgrade and you're screwed it won't work any more at all...' > The ports tree already requires a lot work to make sure everything works on > supported versions of FreeBSD, and I see no reason whatsoever for anyone to put > effort into making it work on EOL versions. > Some of us have production systems that span 6.0->10.0 (and most version in between) and are fighting fires with minimal help just trying to keep ahead.... -- Michelle Sullivan http://www.mhix.org/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?540534D3.603>