Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 16:55:20 -0700 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: Brett Taylor <brett@peloton.physics.montana.edu> Cc: Bill Fumerola <billf@chc-chimes.com>, Adam Turoff <aturoff@isinet.com>, freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: bsd vs. linux and NT chart Message-ID: <4.1.19990302163944.00a1e620@localhost> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9903021622530.19678-100000@peloton.physics.m ontana.edu> References: <4.1.19990302161355.00ad66b0@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 04:34 PM 3/2/99 -0700, Brett Taylor wrote: >Now if you use CVSup to follow the ports tree Stop right there. Most users don't even know what CVSup is, much less use it to update source. They don't want a system that changes every day, nor do they want the overhead of updating everything constantly. >> As for the switch to ELF: yes, it makes maintaining ports a little >> trickier, but if we want to keep loyal users it is inappropriate to >> make this THEIR problem just because they are (wisely) being >> conservative about upgrading to a very different version. > >I won't argue what the core team has decided. The move to ELF is required >if you want to keep up w/ the Linux world which you desperately seem to >want. Sorry, but NOT moving to ELF is required if I want to install proven, stable versions of FreeBSD. I'm still installing 2.2.8, and will CONTINUE to install 2.2.8 until there are at least one or two more releases along the 3.0-STABLE branch. I and my clients have been burned by upgrading too fast before. We need stability. Period. ELF has no advantages in this regard. >That said I see you maintain no ports at all True. I haven't been asked to. Nor would I want to, if the ports system left users in the cold like that. >and yet you think it's possible to keep up 2 very different kinds of ports >trees - one for a.out and one for ELF STABLE. It's hard enough >maintaining it for one tree as it is - don't think so? Go check the >number of open PRs. If it's a problem, it's a problem with the system. Compiling to two formats should not be THAT difficult. But if it's REALLY such a big deal for you to compile to anything but ELF, why not create a module that lets 2.2.x load ELF binaries that use native FreeBSD APIs? It sounds to me as if this would merely involve adapting the Linux compatibility module for 2.2.x to do this when it saw a FreeBSD-branded ELF binary. This module could be brought in as a dependency in the port, along with any "upgrade kit" that was required. >As more and more ports get added (2100 now) that >workload increases. We're a volunteer effort and as Greg Sutter said in a >different email, sacrifices have to be made to get the best overall >quality. To keep the ports tree as good as it is requires that we not >keep a 2.2.* up to date. A tiny amount of cleverness and innovation can solve these problems. But nothing that disenfranchises loyal existing users is acceptable, EVER. --Brett To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.1.19990302163944.00a1e620>