FreeBSD 7.0-BETA4 - Is it stable for home user? - BSD

This is a discussion on FreeBSD 7.0-BETA4 - Is it stable for home user? - BSD ; does xorg work with all the ports...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 27

Thread: FreeBSD 7.0-BETA4 - Is it stable for home user?

  1. FreeBSD 7.0-BETA4 - Is it stable for home user?

    does xorg work with all the ports

  2. Re: FreeBSD 7.0-BETA4 - Is it stable for home user?

    On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 18:00:54 GMT, A2B wrote:
    : does xorg work with all the ports

    Starting at 7.02b2 to 3 from as recently as last sunday has been solid
    on the desktop here. I rebuilt all of my ports for xorg 7 months ago
    however. If you're already at xorg7 it should be a painless source
    update.


  3. Re: FreeBSD 7.0-BETA4 - Is it stable for home user?

    Howard Goldstein wrote:
    > On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 18:00:54 GMT, A2B wrote:
    > : does xorg work with all the ports
    >
    > Starting at 7.02b2 to 3 from as recently as last sunday has been solid
    > on the desktop here. I rebuilt all of my ports for xorg 7 months ago
    > however. If you're already at xorg7 it should be a painless source
    > update.
    >


    Likewise. I upgraded to xorg 7 a few months back. I use gdm for my
    desktop. Two weeks ago I upgraded from FreeBSD 6.3 to 7.0 BETA2. No
    problems.

  4. Re: FreeBSD 7.0-BETA4 - Is it stable for home user?

    On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 00:17:43 +0000, Max Haus wrote:

    > Howard Goldstein wrote:
    >> On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 18:00:54 GMT, A2B wrote:
    >> : does xorg work with all the ports
    >>
    >> Starting at 7.02b2 to 3 from as recently as last sunday has been solid
    >> on the desktop here. I rebuilt all of my ports for xorg 7 months ago
    >> however. If you're already at xorg7 it should be a painless source
    >> update.
    >>
    >>

    > Likewise. I upgraded to xorg 7 a few months back. I use gdm for my
    > desktop. Two weeks ago I upgraded from FreeBSD 6.3 to 7.0 BETA2. No
    > problems.


    Yes, but have you attempted to upgrade your installed ports since the
    switch to 7.0? When I did, all sorts of things broke, because the non-
    upgraded shared libraries were linked against libpthread, but the new
    ones were against libthr, which meant that applications linking to both
    old and new libraries broke in ugly ways (similarly for bumped versions
    of libc, libm and libz, and probably others). As far as I can tell, the
    only way to proceed is (a) exit X and fall back to a "core"-only console
    environment, and then portupgrade -af (probably --batch, so you don't
    have to nurse it through all of the configs). The trouble with *that* is
    that if anything doesn't build properly, there's no way to tell
    portupgrade not to rebuild all of the pieces that *did* build OK the last
    time (it has no breakpoint/restart mechanism). So you can use
    portupgrade --batch -akf, and then fix broken ports by hand, if you can.

    Having been working my way through this maze for a week or two, I'm half
    of the opinion that I should have just made a list of the installed ports
    (i.e., ls /var/db/pkg), backed up /usr/local/etc, and then blown /usr/
    local clean away, and then portinstalled from my list.

    7.0 seems beautifully stable in and of itself. It's certainly great for
    server applications, and it's probably fine if you're doing a clean
    install. There's library version bumpage to watch out for if you try to
    upgrade in place, though. Particularly for a desktop, where the amount
    of ports-based stuff tends to be *large*.

    Cheers,

    --
    Andrew

  5. Re: FreeBSD 7.0-BETA4 - Is it stable for home user?

    On 12/07/2007 05:47 AM, Max Haus wrote:
    > Howard Goldstein wrote:
    >> On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 18:00:54 GMT, A2B wrote:
    >> : does xorg work with all the ports
    >>
    >> Starting at 7.02b2 to 3 from as recently as last sunday has been solid
    >> on the desktop here. I rebuilt all of my ports for xorg 7 months ago
    >> however. If you're already at xorg7 it should be a painless source
    >> update.
    >>

    >
    > Likewise. I upgraded to xorg 7 a few months back. I use gdm for my
    > desktop. Two weeks ago I upgraded from FreeBSD 6.3 to 7.0 BETA2. No
    > problems.


    I did many experiments while I was trying to make my Intel/PRO 2200BG
    card work smoothly with FreeBSD -- upgraded from 6.0-RELEASE to 6.1,
    then 6.2 and even 7.0-CURRENT, downgraded to 6.1-RELEASE, upgraded again
    to 7.0-CURRENT; Xorg 7.x stopped working during one downgrade that's why
    I again moved to 7.0-CURRENT and now a days I am running 8.0-CURRENT,
    Xorg-7.3, KDE-3.5.8 on my DELL Inspiron 4150 without any problems.

    FYI, all my lib/compat subdirectories are clean and, or empty; I don't
    install pre-compiled packages and I'm patient enough to make the broken
    apps work; all this seems quite a tedious job sometimes.

    All you have to do is read the /usr/src/UPDATING and /usr/ports/UPDATING
    files carefully and follow directions of developers and, or maintainers
    of these systems. Moreover, one should know well what one is doing.

    As for as stability of 7.0-BETA4 and, or other BETA releases for home
    user is concerned -- their is no harm in trying these. The FreeBSD is
    community project, developed and, or maintained by users for users, so
    the feedback and, or constructive criticism from users is not only
    welcomed, but is also appreciated as contribution.

    --
    Dr Balwinder S "bsd" Dheeman Registered Linux User: #229709
    Anu'z Linux@HOME (Unix Shoppe) Machines: #168573, 170593, 259192
    Chandigarh, UT, 160062, India Gentoo, Fedora, Debian/FreeBSD/XP
    Home: http://cto.homelinux.net/~bsd/ Visit: http://counter.li.org/

  6. Re: FreeBSD 7.0-BETA4 - Is it stable for home user?

    On 7 Dec 2007 05:02:53 GMT, Andrew Reilly wrote:
    : On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 00:17:43 +0000, Max Haus wrote:
    :
    : > Howard Goldstein wrote:
    : >> On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 18:00:54 GMT, A2B wrote:
    : >> : does xorg work with all the ports
    : >>
    : >> Starting at 7.02b2 to 3 from as recently as last sunday has been solid
    : >> on the desktop here. I rebuilt all of my ports for xorg 7 months ago
    : >> however. If you're already at xorg7 it should be a painless source
    : >> update.
    : >>
    : >>
    : > Likewise. I upgraded to xorg 7 a few months back. I use gdm for my
    : > desktop. Two weeks ago I upgraded from FreeBSD 6.3 to 7.0 BETA2. No
    : > problems.
    :
    : Yes, but have you attempted to upgrade your installed ports since the
    : switch to 7.0?

    Yes, I csup the ports tree and portupgrade -aR every day

    : When I did, all sorts of things broke, because the non-
    : upgraded shared libraries were linked against libpthread, but the new
    : ones were against libthr, which meant that applications linking to both
    : old and new libraries broke in ugly ways (similarly for bumped versions
    : of libc, libm and libz, and probably others). As far as I can tell, the
    : only way to proceed is (a) exit X and fall back to a "core"-only console
    : environment, and then portupgrade -af (probably --batch, so you don't
    : have to nurse it through all of the configs). The trouble with *that* is
    : that if anything doesn't build properly, there's no way to tell
    : portupgrade not to rebuild all of the pieces that *did* build OK the last
    : time (it has no breakpoint/restart mechanism). So you can use
    : portupgrade --batch -akf, and then fix broken ports by hand, if you can.

    Did you make delete-old-libs? I did and man that's a mistake, it that
    broke everything. I had to copy the old libs from a box I didn't
    upgrade.

    You'll need to rebuild everyting if you delted old libs

    :
    : Having been working my way through this maze for a week or two, I'm half
    : of the opinion that I should have just made a list of the installed ports
    : (i.e., ls /var/db/pkg), backed up /usr/local/etc, and then blown /usr/
    : local clean away, and then portinstalled from my list.
    :
    : 7.0 seems beautifully stable in and of itself. It's certainly great for
    : server applications, and it's probably fine if you're doing a clean
    : install. There's library version bumpage to watch out for if you try to
    : upgrade in place, though. Particularly for a desktop, where the amount
    : of ports-based stuff tends to be *large*.


  7. Re: FreeBSD 7.0-BETA4 - Is it stable for home user?

    On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 14:34:55 GMT, Howard Goldstein wrote:
    : Did you make delete-old-libs? I did and man that's a mistake, it that
    : broke everything. I had to copy the old libs from a box I didn't
    : upgrade.
    :
    : You'll need to rebuild everyting if you delted old libs

    It was like 9AM when I wrote this and no, I was not drunk. I write
    better when I'm soused. Hopefully you got the idea.

    When I upgraded that second box from 6.2 stable to 7.0b2 I didn't have
    the ports issues at all because I refrained from doing a make
    delete-old-libs. Make delete-old is cool, delete-old-libs is not
    cool.

    So long as you don't remove the old libs the old ports should run
    quite happily. The old ports are linked to versionized libs and
    they'll coexist with new ports built against new libraries.

    Now whether it's a good idea to keep it that way for any length of
    time is another matter. Probably not the best idea if the old libs
    are buggy.

  8. Re: FreeBSD 7.0-BETA4 - Is it stable for home user?

    hgoldste@mpcs.com (Howard Goldstein) writes:

    > On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 14:34:55 GMT, Howard Goldstein wrote:
    > : Did you make delete-old-libs? I did and man that's a mistake, it that
    > : broke everything. I had to copy the old libs from a box I didn't
    > : upgrade.
    > :
    > : You'll need to rebuild everyting if you delted old libs
    >
    > It was like 9AM when I wrote this and no, I was not drunk. I write
    > better when I'm soused. Hopefully you got the idea.
    >
    > When I upgraded that second box from 6.2 stable to 7.0b2 I didn't have
    > the ports issues at all because I refrained from doing a make
    > delete-old-libs. Make delete-old is cool, delete-old-libs is not
    > cool.
    >
    > So long as you don't remove the old libs the old ports should run
    > quite happily. The old ports are linked to versionized libs and
    > they'll coexist with new ports built against new libraries.
    >
    > Now whether it's a good idea to keep it that way for any length of
    > time is another matter. Probably not the best idea if the old libs
    > are buggy.


    Or if you plan on building any new ports.

    --
    Lowell Gilbert, embedded/networking software engineer
    http://be-well.ilk.org/~lowell/

  9. Re: FreeBSD 7.0-BETA4 - Is it stable for home user?

    Howard Goldstein wrote:
    > On 7 Dec 2007 05:02:53 GMT, Andrew Reilly wrote:
    > : On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 00:17:43 +0000, Max Haus wrote:
    > :
    > : > Howard Goldstein wrote:
    > : >> On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 18:00:54 GMT, A2B wrote:
    > : >> : does xorg work with all the ports
    > : >>
    > : >> Starting at 7.02b2 to 3 from as recently as last sunday has been solid
    > : >> on the desktop here. I rebuilt all of my ports for xorg 7 months ago
    > : >> however. If you're already at xorg7 it should be a painless source
    > : >> update.
    > : >>
    > : >>
    > : > Likewise. I upgraded to xorg 7 a few months back. I use gdm for my
    > : > desktop. Two weeks ago I upgraded from FreeBSD 6.3 to 7.0 BETA2. No
    > : > problems.
    > :
    > : Yes, but have you attempted to upgrade your installed ports since the
    > : switch to 7.0?
    >
    > Yes, I csup the ports tree and portupgrade -aR every day


    Pretty much the same with me, except I do a cvsup on the ports tree
    every weekend, because my ISP gives me more download then. I then do a
    "portupgrade -varR".


  10. Re: FreeBSD 7.0-BETA4 - Is it stable for home user?

    On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 13:59:09 -0500, Lowell Gilbert wrote:
    : hgoldste@mpcs.com (Howard Goldstein) writes:
    :
    : > On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 14:34:55 GMT, Howard Goldstein wrote:
    : > : Did you make delete-old-libs? I did and man that's a mistake, it that
    : > : broke everything. I had to copy the old libs from a box I didn't
    : > : upgrade.
    : > :
    : > : You'll need to rebuild everyting if you delted old libs
    : >
    : > It was like 9AM when I wrote this and no, I was not drunk. I write
    : > better when I'm soused. Hopefully you got the idea.
    : >
    : > When I upgraded that second box from 6.2 stable to 7.0b2 I didn't have
    : > the ports issues at all because I refrained from doing a make
    : > delete-old-libs. Make delete-old is cool, delete-old-libs is not
    : > cool.
    : >
    : > So long as you don't remove the old libs the old ports should run
    : > quite happily. The old ports are linked to versionized libs and
    : > they'll coexist with new ports built against new libraries.
    : >
    : > Now whether it's a good idea to keep it that way for any length of
    : > time is another matter. Probably not the best idea if the old libs
    : > are buggy.
    :
    : Or if you plan on building any new ports.

    That isn't a problem since new port builds link to the new libs,


  11. Re: FreeBSD 7.0-BETA4 - Is it stable for home user?

    On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 01:59:20 GMT, Max Haus wrote:
    : > Yes, I csup the ports tree and portupgrade -aR every day
    :
    : Pretty much the same with me, except I do a cvsup on the ports tree
    : every weekend, because my ISP gives me more download then. I then do a
    : "portupgrade -varR".
    :

    If you like cvsup but don't need a Tk interface you're going to love
    csup. It's in base now, too.


  12. Re: FreeBSD 7.0-BETA4 - Is it stable for home user?

    hgoldste@mpcs.com (Howard Goldstein) writes:

    > That isn't a problem since new port builds link to the new libs,


    As long as you have new libraries for everything, then you're fine.
    But if you left any old ports libraries not upgraded, new ports will
    link to a mix of old and new libraries, and the results will tend to
    be unpleasant.


  13. Re: FreeBSD 7.0-BETA4 - Is it stable for home user?

    On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 17:36:23 -0500, Lowell Gilbert wrote:
    : hgoldste@mpcs.com (Howard Goldstein) writes:
    :
    : > That isn't a problem since new port builds link to the new libs,
    :
    : As long as you have new libraries for everything, then you're fine.
    : But if you left any old ports libraries not upgraded, new ports will
    : link to a mix of old and new libraries, and the results will tend to
    : be unpleasant.

    I don't think that can happen without some exceptional forcing. When
    a base library version changes the symlinks go with it. Subsequent
    port builds are branded with whatever's pointed to at buildtime by the
    symlink.

    The sort of forcing might be by overwriting an install with an earlier
    binary install. Can you think of any situation where the old/new is
    going to cause problems not mentioned already?


  14. Re: FreeBSD 7.0-BETA4 - Is it stable for home user?

    Howard Goldstein wrote:
    > On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 17:36:23 -0500, Lowell Gilbert wrote:
    > : hgoldste@mpcs.com (Howard Goldstein) writes:
    > :
    > : > That isn't a problem since new port builds link to the new libs,
    > :
    > : As long as you have new libraries for everything, then you're fine.
    > : But if you left any old ports libraries not upgraded, new ports will
    > : link to a mix of old and new libraries, and the results will tend to
    > : be unpleasant.
    >
    > I don't think that can happen without some exceptional forcing. When
    > a base library version changes the symlinks go with it. Subsequent
    > port builds are branded with whatever's pointed to at buildtime by the
    > symlink.
    >
    > The sort of forcing might be by overwriting an install with an earlier
    > binary install. Can you think of any situation where the old/new is
    > going to cause problems not mentioned already?
    >


    Yes, suppose that some binary A requires a library B, and another C
    and moreover B requires another library D, and C also requires D.
    (Yes a library can link another library, typical example threading libs).

    Now you are open after upgrades to the fact that A links two different
    versions of the same D, which leads to sure crash. I think this is
    precisely what occurred to people with upgrades of the threading
    libraries and partial upgrade of ports.

    --

    Michel TALON


  15. Re: FreeBSD 7.0-BETA4 - Is it stable for home user?

    On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 23:05:22 +0000 (UTC), Michel Talon wrote:
    : Howard Goldstein wrote:
    : > On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 17:36:23 -0500, Lowell Gilbert wrote:
    : > : hgoldste@mpcs.com (Howard Goldstein) writes:
    : > :
    : > : > That isn't a problem since new port builds link to the new libs,
    : > :
    : > : As long as you have new libraries for everything, then you're fine.
    : > : But if you left any old ports libraries not upgraded, new ports will
    : > : link to a mix of old and new libraries, and the results will tend to
    : > : be unpleasant.
    : >
    : > I don't think that can happen without some exceptional forcing. When
    : > a base library version changes the symlinks go with it. Subsequent
    : > port builds are branded with whatever's pointed to at buildtime by the
    : > symlink.
    : >
    : > The sort of forcing might be by overwriting an install with an earlier
    : > binary install. Can you think of any situation where the old/new is
    : > going to cause problems not mentioned already?
    : >
    :
    : Yes, suppose that some binary A requires a library B, and another C
    : and moreover B requires another library D, and C also requires D.
    : (Yes a library can link another library, typical example threading libs).
    :
    : Now you are open after upgrades to the fact that A links two different
    : versions of the same D, which leads to sure crash. I think this is
    : precisely what occurred to people with upgrades of the threading
    : libraries and partial upgrade of ports.

    Do you have an example of this actually occurring or is it more a
    suspicion?

  16. Re: FreeBSD 7.0-BETA4 - Is it stable for home user?

    On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 22:54:59 +0000, Howard Goldstein wrote:

    > I don't think that can happen without some exceptional forcing. When a
    > base library version changes the symlinks go with it. Subsequent port
    > builds are branded with whatever's pointed to at buildtime by the
    > symlink.


    (a) the symlink upgrade doesn't protect you from -pthread switch bringing
    in libpth.so where it used to (on 6.x) bring in libpthread.so: different
    name.

    (b) in practice, it seems that libraries know the specific version that
    they've been linked against. I don't understand the details, but I've
    ldd'd many an app and seen multiple versions of libz.so.? and libc.so.?

    Things are stable and (mostly) lovely, now that I've manually nuked or
    upgraded every library and application that had been built under 6-stable.

    Summary: yes, you can upgrade 6-stable to 7-stable in-place, using the
    instructions in UPDATING. You have to blow away or forceably upgrade
    everything else, though, even though it'll all appear to work fine in
    compatability mode.

    Cheers,

    --
    Andrew

  17. Re: FreeBSD 7.0-BETA4 - Is it stable for home user?

    Howard Goldstein wrote:
    > : Now you are open after upgrades to the fact that A links two different
    > : versions of the same D, which leads to sure crash. I think this is
    > : precisely what occurred to people with upgrades of the threading
    > : libraries and partial upgrade of ports.
    >
    > Do you have an example of this actually occurring or is it more a
    > suspicion?


    As i said just above, many people have complained on freebsd mailing
    lists precisely about this problem. It is not imaginary. This for
    example about the QT port. It contains the qt-mt library which is linked
    to many libraries:
    niobe% ldd /usr/X11R6/lib/libqt-mt.so.3.3.6
    /usr/X11R6/lib/libqt-mt.so.3.3.6:
    libaudio.so.2 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libaudio.so.2 (0x28807000)
    libXt.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libXt.so.6 (0x2881a000)
    libmng.so.1 => /usr/local/lib/libmng.so.1 (0x28865000)
    libjpeg.so.9 => /usr/local/lib/libjpeg.so.9 (0x288bb000)
    libpng.so.5 => /usr/local/lib/libpng.so.5 (0x288d9000)
    libz.so.3 => /lib/libz.so.3 (0x288fb000)
    .....
    In turn it is linked by the whole KDE stuff. So the potential to have
    several different copies of the above after a partial upgrade is big.


    --

    Michel TALON


  18. Re: FreeBSD 7.0-BETA4 - Is it stable for home user?

    On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 09:45:34 +0000 (UTC), Michel Talon wrote:
    : Howard Goldstein wrote:
    : > : Now you are open after upgrades to the fact that A links two different
    : > : versions of the same D, which leads to sure crash. I think this is
    : > : precisely what occurred to people with upgrades of the threading
    : > : libraries and partial upgrade of ports.
    : >
    : > Do you have an example of this actually occurring or is it more a
    : > suspicion?
    :
    : As i said just above, many people have complained on freebsd mailing
    : lists precisely about this problem. It is not imaginary.

    Don't be offended I said suspicion, I'm not accusing you of making it
    up. I'm genuinely curious about whether the root cause was ever
    traced to having an old library around? I thought that was the reason
    for the hell of moving to ELF that we underwent a long long time ago?

    Now, I would expect complaints about bitrot or security holes or stuff
    like that in the old libraries and perhaps that's what was breaking qt.

    : This for
    : example about the QT port. It contains the qt-mt library which is linked
    : to many libraries:
    : niobe% ldd /usr/X11R6/lib/libqt-mt.so.3.3.6
    : /usr/X11R6/lib/libqt-mt.so.3.3.6:
    : libaudio.so.2 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libaudio.so.2 (0x28807000)
    : libXt.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libXt.so.6 (0x2881a000)
    : libmng.so.1 => /usr/local/lib/libmng.so.1 (0x28865000)
    : libjpeg.so.9 => /usr/local/lib/libjpeg.so.9 (0x288bb000)
    : libpng.so.5 => /usr/local/lib/libpng.so.5 (0x288d9000)
    : libz.so.3 => /lib/libz.so.3 (0x288fb000)
    : ....
    : In turn it is linked by the whole KDE stuff. So the potential to have
    : several different copies of the above after a partial upgrade is big.

    Your ldd dump shows my point exactly, and it should be reassuring to
    those who are concerned about having old libraries around: The app and
    lib images know which versions of other libraries they need. Their
    mere presence is not problematic in and of itself.



  19. Re: FreeBSD 7.0-BETA4 - Is it stable for home user?

    On 9 Dec 2007 07:41:30 GMT, Andrew Reilly wrote:
    : On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 22:54:59 +0000, Howard Goldstein wrote:
    :
    : > I don't think that can happen without some exceptional forcing. When a
    : > base library version changes the symlinks go with it. Subsequent port
    : > builds are branded with whatever's pointed to at buildtime by the
    : > symlink.
    :
    : (a) the symlink upgrade doesn't protect you from -pthread switch bringing
    : in libpth.so where it used to (on 6.x) bring in libpthread.so: different
    : name.

    Did you make delete-old-libs?

    :
    : (b) in practice, it seems that libraries know the specific version that
    : they've been linked against. I don't understand the details, but I've
    : ldd'd many an app and seen multiple versions of libz.so.? and libc.so.?
    :
    : Things are stable and (mostly) lovely, now that I've manually nuked or
    : upgraded every library and application that had been built under 6-stable.
    :
    : Summary: yes, you can upgrade 6-stable to 7-stable in-place, using the
    : instructions in UPDATING. You have to blow away or forceably upgrade
    : everything else, though, even though it'll all appear to work fine in
    : compatability mode.
    :
    : Cheers,
    :

  20. Re: FreeBSD 7.0-BETA4 - Is it stable for home user?

    Howard Goldstein wrote:
    >
    > Your ldd dump shows my point exactly, and it should be reassuring to
    > those who are concerned about having old libraries around: The app and
    > lib images know which versions of other libraries they need. Their
    > mere presence is not problematic in and of itself.
    >


    No it doesn't show your point. It shows that the same binary can turn
    out linked with two different *versions* of the *same* library. This
    happened to several people who have reported it on the mailing lists.
    In this case, when you call functions in this library, how do you know
    what bit of code will be executed? If you call pthread_mutex_init(), how
    do you know it will refer to one or the other? And maybe the two
    libraries need different initializations, hence a crash.

    Your problem is that you are contesting the reality of situations which
    have been clearly described in the mailing lists by library and
    threading experts, notably D. Eischen, recently.

    >


    --

    Michel TALON


+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast