Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2012 13:31:48 -0300 From: "JoaoBR" <joao@matik.com.br> To: "Nomen Nescio" <nobody@dizum.com> Cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: flowtable usable or not Message-ID: <710f84e85948db9ea902d91c00293aee.squirrel@wm.matik.com.br> In-Reply-To: <18c325310044439cbc4d03c7e0bbec52@dizum.com> References: <18c325310044439cbc4d03c7e0bbec52@dizum.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Em Sex, Março 2, 2012 11:35, Nomen Nescio escreveu: >> my experiences of slow and nightmarishly error-ridden port updates > > I have no intention to bash FreeBSD or ports but ports is certainly not > without problems. It's annoying but not a reason to use Ubuntu! Get a > grip, man! ;-) > >> I know there are users who have operated without such problems >> > > I think if you use the i386 architecture and the common ports you are > less likely to find something before somebody else finds it and it gets > fixed. If you use any other platform you are likely to find problems with > ports and this gets amplified if you use nonstandard (read stuff not > everybody uses) ports. with some good luck may be ... ports need some kind of disaster management for example, certain ports depending on perl, install or upgrade fine when using portupgrade or portinstall and are satisfied with let's say perl-8.9 then you use pkg_add, or -P[P] switch and the same port looks for perl.12.4 and bumps it into the system careless, not even checking if there is another perl already no way using batch on ports today unless you like to get screwed and never turn your eyes away from screen .... I do not need to say more, you all know that and I can understand the frustration of whom is gotten caught by this mess > I have found several ports broken for many releases > in a row. Other ports aren't supported on certain target architectures but > the build doesn't tell you that until after it has run for a couple of > hours downloading huge source tarballs and compiling them only to give you > a nastygram "Sorry this port is not available on AMD64" of something like > that. I understand not every port maintainer can test on every arch but come on, then the port should not be there for this architecture ... or it is and works or it is not or do we have new standards now as 0|0.5|1 or is it still 0|1 ? > come on, for stuff that you know doesn't work can't you check at the > beginning and stop rather than put out a message when the build breaks? some fine ports are compiling fine, go through the whole process and screw all up at the install process, they already run pkg_delete, do not find the dependency, do some stuff and bail out, at the end portupgrade confirm success but they do not got installed but de-installed, as present some dependencies are messed up ... :) so as it is, better grab the original sources and compile your stuff on your own and stay "far" away from ports -- João Martins (JoaoBR) Infomatik Development Team http://wipserver.matik.com.br +55 11 4249.2222
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?710f84e85948db9ea902d91c00293aee.squirrel>