gettext/GPLv4 virus infects FreeBSD - BSD

This is a discussion on gettext/GPLv4 virus infects FreeBSD - BSD ; On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 14:03:11 +0000 (UTC), Michel Talon wrote: > > In these cases, just wait some days, and then use the packages built on > > the compilation farm; just upgrade from ports when you have some ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 87

Thread: gettext/GPLv4 virus infects FreeBSD

  1. Re: gettext/GPLv4 virus infects FreeBSD

    On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 14:03:11 +0000 (UTC), Michel Talon wrote:

    > > In these cases, just wait some days, and then use the packages built on
    > > the compilation farm; just upgrade from ports when you have some
    > > customized options.


    > An option which is considered as the devil's tentation by many FreeBSD
    > users, (note i have not said the penguin's way) and lacks proper tools
    > to be used comfortably ...


    Michel, I know your views about portupgrade, but the -P option has been
    designed for that... Yes, it's slow, but yet better than recompiling
    everything!
    --
    Th. Thomas.

  2. Re: gettext/GPLv4 virus infects FreeBSD

    Thierry Thomas wrote:
    > On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 14:03:11 +0000 (UTC), Michel Talon wrote:
    >
    > > > In these cases, just wait some days, and then use the packages built on
    > > > the compilation farm; just upgrade from ports when you have some
    > > > customized options.

    >
    > > An option which is considered as the devil's tentation by many FreeBSD
    > > users, (note i have not said the penguin's way) and lacks proper tools
    > > to be used comfortably ...

    >
    > Michel, I know your views about portupgrade, but the -P option has been
    > designed for that... Yes, it's slow, but yet better than recompiling
    > everything!


    I have used portupgrade -P in the past, and my experience is that it is
    crap to speak clearly. Half of the ports are rebuilt from source with
    this option. It is no better with portupgrade -PP, because if it cannot
    find a package it fails. To be complete, when using plain portupgrade,
    there is a 50% probability that the build stops in the middle and leaves
    you with an half upgraded box. The guy who has designed this aberration
    should be shot. I completely agree with you however that people should
    use binary packages, and upgrade from ports only when using customized
    options. Unfortunately FreeBSD has no automated working tools to do
    that.

    --

    Michel TALON


  3. Re: gettext/GPLv4 virus infects FreeBSD

    Joerg Schilling wrote:
    > In article ,
    > Martin Etteldorf wrote:
    >>J. Porter Clark wrote:
    >>> Martin Etteldorf writes:
    >>>
    >>>>Robert Melson wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> Days. Yeah, I know, it's a function of what you have installed.
    >>>>> I have chosen to use my system as a workstation,
    >>>
    >>>>I'm doing that as well, and -- believe it or not -- you can still
    >>>>live fine without Gnome and KDE.
    >>>
    >>> Yes, but can you live without cdrecord? 8-(

    >>
    >>Yes. *For me*, burncd and dvd+rw-tools are sufficient.

    >
    > Looks like a funny missunderstanding.....


    That so?

    > burncd is non-portable and both programs do not implement the
    > features you get from cdrecord.


    So what? I was asked whether I could live without cdrecord and
    I answered, that *I* can live without it.
    no offense... cdrecord is a great piece of software and to put
    it frankly, I'm using it in environments other than FreeBSD.
    But again: *I* don't need it *on a FreeBSD box*

    > In addition both programs still require mkisofs


    I'm afraid you're in the wrong here.

    >>BTW: cdrecord needs neither gettext nor iconv if you have set
    >>WITHOUT_NLS=yes in your build environment. Setting this is a good
    >>idea anyway if you don't need it, as it also helps a lot to avoid
    >>installing unnecessary packages.

    >
    > The build system does not understand something like "WITHOUT_NLS=yes"


    Oh yes, the build system of FreeBSD (i.e. "ports"-Mechanism) does.

    > and mkisofs will not be able to work correctly in a UTF-8 based locale
    > if there is no iconv(3).


    Now why exactly should I care about that in a solely non-UTF8-
    Environment?



    Martin

    --
    "For the Snark's a peculiar creature, that won't
    Be caught in a commonplace way.
    Do all that you know, and try all that you don't;
    Not a chance must be wasted to-day!"

  4. Re: gettext/GPLv4 virus infects FreeBSD

    Martin Etteldorf wrote:
    > > burncd is non-portable and both programs do not implement the
    > > features you get from cdrecord.

    >
    > So what? I was asked whether I could live without cdrecord and
    > I answered, that *I* can live without it.
    > no offense... cdrecord is a great piece of software and to put
    > it frankly, I'm using it in environments other than FreeBSD.
    > But again: *I* don't need it *on a FreeBSD box*
    >


    Maybe *you* can use burncd with your CD burner, but for a lot of
    people, including myself with 3 different burners, it doesn't work,
    pure and simple, while i don't have any problem with cdrecord.


    --

    Michel TALON


  5. Re: gettext/GPLv4 virus infects FreeBSD

    In article ,
    talon@lpthe.jussieu.fr (Michel Talon) writes:
    > Thierry Thomas wrote:
    >> On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 14:03:11 +0000 (UTC), Michel Talon wrote:
    >>
    >> > > In these cases, just wait some days, and then use the packages built on
    >> > > the compilation farm; just upgrade from ports when you have some
    >> > > customized options.

    >>
    >> > An option which is considered as the devil's tentation by many FreeBSD
    >> > users, (note i have not said the penguin's way) and lacks proper tools
    >> > to be used comfortably ...

    >>
    >> Michel, I know your views about portupgrade, but the -P option has been
    >> designed for that... Yes, it's slow, but yet better than recompiling
    >> everything!

    >
    > I have used portupgrade -P in the past, and my experience is that it is
    > crap to speak clearly. Half of the ports are rebuilt from source with
    > this option. It is no better with portupgrade -PP, because if it cannot
    > find a package it fails. To be complete, when using plain portupgrade,
    > there is a 50% probability that the build stops in the middle and leaves
    > you with an half upgraded box. The guy who has designed this aberration
    > should be shot. I completely agree with you however that people should
    > use binary packages, and upgrade from ports only when using customized
    > options. Unfortunately FreeBSD has no automated working tools to do
    > that.
    >


    That's been my experience with the -P and -PP options of portupgrade,
    which is one of the reasons I pretty much confine myself to
    rolling my own by compiling upgrades from the ports tree.

    As for the rest, the sad fact is that there's no system out there
    in the wild that has a completely satisfactory upgrade mechanism,
    not even the major commercial houses. Unless it's changed in the
    last couple of years, IBM's installp is a true abortion, as are
    both Sun's and HP's attempts. In the case of FBSD, I really think
    the problem is a compound of an increasingly cumbersome ports
    system and upgrade tools that are less than optimal. What to do
    about it? Dunno, to be honest, though a good start would be to
    clean up and clean out the ports tree and by insisting that the
    basic, core requirements be consistent - why, for example, should
    one set of applications require glib-1XX and another group glib-2XX?
    Why, if A requires B and B requires C, should C be listed as a
    requirement for A? The whole system is creaky and cranky and, it
    seems, largely undisciplined. Could I do better? Probably not
    even as well, truth to tell. Does that make my observations any
    less valid? I think not.

    Bob Melson

    --
    Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
    -----
    Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is the probable
    reason so few engage in it. -- Henry Ford


  6. Re: gettext/GPLv4 virus infects FreeBSD

    jpd wrote:
    >> Note which of these two OS (Ubuntu and FreeBSD) is gaining market
    >> share and which is losing it...

    >
    >Cheap shot, and few here will care. Simply because ubuntu does something
    >different for a different market


    That's an odd way of magrginalizing someone's thesis. I guess you don't
    see package release management as being an OS differentiator. From my
    perspective it is not only a differentiator, it is _the_ differentiator.
    Package subsystems are in many ways more important than the OS itself.

    But I digress, having seen this type of forest and trees issue before.
    In the 80s it was Osborne, Lotus, Borland, and Wordstar's market to lose,
    in the 90s IBM, Sun, Quarterdeck, and Wordprefect's. FreeBSD and
    BSD ports are at the same crossroads today. Of that I'm certain.

    Paco

  7. Re: gettext/GPLv4 virus infects FreeBSD

    Michel Talon wrote:
    > Martin Etteldorf wrote:
    >> > burncd is non-portable and both programs do not implement the
    >> > features you get from cdrecord.

    >>
    >> So what? I was asked whether I could live without cdrecord and
    >> I answered, that *I* can live without it.
    >> no offense... cdrecord is a great piece of software and to put
    >> it frankly, I'm using it in environments other than FreeBSD.
    >> But again: *I* don't need it *on a FreeBSD box*
    >>

    >
    > Maybe *you* can use burncd with your CD burner


    Yes, that's exactly what I said.


    Martin

    --
    "For the Snark's a peculiar creature, that won't
    Be caught in a commonplace way.
    Do all that you know, and try all that you don't;
    Not a chance must be wasted to-day!"

  8. Re: gettext/GPLv4 virus infects FreeBSD

    Begin <4851f154$0$17174$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>
    On 13 Jun 2008 04:02:28 GMT, Paco wrote:
    > jpd wrote:
    >>> Note which of these two OS (Ubuntu and FreeBSD) is gaining market
    >>> share and which is losing it...

    >>
    >>Cheap shot, and few here will care. Simply because ubuntu does something
    >>different for a different market

    >
    > That's an odd way of magrginalizing someone's thesis.


    I don't think your argumentation is valid. It's akin to saying, oh,
    trains are losing market because everybody wants a SUV. Both may be
    true, but the connection between them is flimsy at best. Worse, it reeks
    of trolling for any reaction, which if true justifies dismissing the
    argument with prejudice, were such necessairy on usenet. Use a better
    comparison and you get a better argument.


    > I guess you don't see package release management as being an OS
    > differentiator. From my perspective it is not only a differentiator,
    > it is _the_ differentiator. Package subsystems are in many ways more
    > important than the OS itself.


    The key of the ports system is that it offers you lots of things beyond
    mere binary packages that makes it attractive for people who need that
    sort of thing. You seem to have problems justifying its use, meaning
    that you're not taking full advantage of what it can do.

    That's fine: There are many other systems that offer a different set of
    features and have different skill requirements. If you can find a system
    better suited to your needs, then use that.

    *I think*, basing on reading between the lines of what you said earlier,
    that your shop seems to need to re-evaluate and adjust how it is doing
    what it is doing. I also think that FreeBSD may still be a good choice,
    but even if not, you'll know that better after looking at how your shop
    functions. That'll work better than just venting your frustration here.


    > But I digress, having seen this type of forest and trees issue before.
    > In the 80s it was Osborne, Lotus, Borland, and Wordstar's market to lose,
    > in the 90s IBM, Sun, Quarterdeck, and Wordprefect's. FreeBSD and
    > BSD ports are at the same crossroads today. Of that I'm certain.


    You're forgetting that those were commercial enterprises depending on
    their users to generate them revenue.

    FreeBSD, like many other OSS projects, merely depends on enough people
    willing to put effort into improving the system, and perhaps a few
    generous people to provide some funding for infrastructure.

    You can insist on trying to find the real cause for your frustration
    externally, but you won't find it here. It also makes you sound like
    a troll. If nothing else, you'll have to come up with much better
    arguments, but you'll probably have to bring people who care too.


    --
    j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
    This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
    Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
    consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

  9. Re: gettext/GPLv4 virus infects FreeBSD

    jpd wrote:
    >I don't think your argumentation is valid. It's akin to saying, oh,
    >trains are losing market because everybody wants a SUV. Both may be
    >true, but the connection between them is flimsy at best. Worse, it reeks
    >of trolling


    If you don't think the argument is valid why then haven't you explained
    the reasons release management is important for a base OS but not a
    ports subsystem? Without this your argument is inconsistent.

    How is it ok to either lose the ability to do incremental updates or
    spend a hours reconciling libraries (in-between releases) in ports but
    not in base? The distinction is lost on those of us who maintain both.

    >The key of the ports system is that it offers you lots of things beyond
    >mere binary packages that makes it attractive for people who need that
    >sort of thing. You seem to have problems justifying its use, meaning
    >that you're not taking full advantage of what it can do.


    I fully understand the advantage of FreeBSD's ports. That's why I raised
    this issue in the first place. You are simply venting, but let me ask you
    a question: aside from the advantages of source-based vs release-based
    ports, does FreeBSD ports subsystem offer any other advantages over
    Ubuntu's? I guess I should first ask if you have ever used a package
    manager like aptitude or synaptic. The way you've dismissed each's
    differential advantages makes it seem unlikely.

    >FreeBSD, like many other OSS projects, merely depends on enough people
    >willing to put effort into improving the system, and perhaps a few
    >generous people to provide some funding for infrastructure.


    Give me a break. That's not even tangentially related to whether or not
    the ports-maintainer is capable of applying release management best
    practices. That's the issue here, industry best practices. FreeBSD
    doesn't exist in a vacuume, it exists in a competitive environment.
    If sloppy ports release management doesn't diminish FreeBSD's market
    share, mindshare, number of users, number of contributors, or the
    viability of its future releases, then everything I've ever learned
    about software development is wrong.

    >You can insist on trying to find the real cause for your frustration
    >externally, but you won't find it here. It also makes you sound like
    >a troll.


    There you go again, shooting the messenger. Now how about replying to
    the substantive questions asked above?

    Paco

  10. Re: gettext/GPLv4 virus infects FreeBSD

    On 2008-06-14, Paco wrote:
    > jpd wrote:
    >>I don't think your argumentation is valid. It's akin to saying, oh,
    >>trains are losing market because everybody wants a SUV. Both may be
    >>true, but the connection between them is flimsy at best. Worse, it reeks
    >>of trolling

    >
    > If you don't think the argument is valid why then haven't you explained
    > the reasons release management is important for a base OS but not a
    > ports subsystem? Without this your argument is inconsistent.
    >
    > How is it ok to either lose the ability to do incremental updates or
    > spend a hours reconciling libraries (in-between releases) in ports but
    > not in base? The distinction is lost on those of us who maintain both.
    >
    >>The key of the ports system is that it offers you lots of things beyond
    >>mere binary packages that makes it attractive for people who need that
    >>sort of thing. You seem to have problems justifying its use, meaning
    >>that you're not taking full advantage of what it can do.

    >
    > I fully understand the advantage of FreeBSD's ports. That's why I raised
    > this issue in the first place. You are simply venting, but let me ask you
    > a question: aside from the advantages of source-based vs release-based
    > ports, does FreeBSD ports subsystem offer any other advantages over
    > Ubuntu's? I guess I should first ask if you have ever used a package


    Getting into the differences of FreeBSD versus Linux is a HUGE can of worms.
    If you are not aware of why FreeBSD is NOT a linux "distro", then you should
    go do some homework and come back later.

    < remainder of post snipped as credibility of poster shattered by previous
    statement >

    Cheers

    JE

  11. Re: gettext/GPLv4 virus infects FreeBSD

    Begin <48534242$0$17190$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>
    On 14 Jun 2008 04:00:02 GMT, Paco wrote:
    > jpd wrote:
    >>I don't think your argumentation is valid. It's akin to saying, oh,
    >>trains are losing market because everybody wants a SUV. Both may be
    >>true, but the connection between them is flimsy at best. Worse, it reeks
    >>of trolling

    >
    > If you don't think the argument is valid why then haven't you explained

    [lots of snip]

    I am under no obligation to explain you anything. I'm saying that if
    you want to discuss your point with me you need to do so on terms that
    I find acceptable. Trolling I don't think acceptable. So I gave you the
    chance to cleanse your argment of the stink of trolling.

    The rest, sadly, consisted of you arguing yourself into a ``not to be
    taken seriously'' corner. Regardless of merit of your actual point, this
    means that I will not discussing with you further.


    --
    j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
    This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
    Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
    consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

  12. Re: gettext/GPLv4 virus infects FreeBSD

    Paco wrote:
    >
    > Give me a break. That's not even tangentially related to whether or not
    > the ports-maintainer is capable of applying release management best
    > practices. That's the issue here, industry best practices. FreeBSD
    > doesn't exist in a vacuume, it exists in a competitive environment.
    > If sloppy ports release management doesn't diminish FreeBSD's market
    > share, mindshare, number of users, number of contributors, or the
    > viability of its future releases, then everything I've ever learned
    > about software development is wrong.


    Honestly in every system there are ports which are maintained in a
    sensible way, and ports which are maintained by clowns. I know some
    packages in Ubuntu which belong to the last category, even if most
    packages are good. So you have to judge FreeBSD ports as an ensemble,
    and, in my opinion, the vast majority of ports are well maintained,
    up to date, and working. One cannot throw everything out of the window
    because a small number of ports have ridiculous dependencies or don't
    work. For me the mere richness of the ports system - the fact that we
    have 18000 ports - is a considerable asset, similarly for Debian or
    Ubuntu. I would never trade that for a minuscule number of ports like in
    OpenBSD, even if considerably audited and polished. This necessarily
    comes with a price, that a small number of ports are bad.
    As for the general tools, and philosophy, it is a completely different
    problem. My opinion is that the general philosophy - building everything
    from source - is completely wrong, and a major cause of problems in
    FreeBSD. The Linux distribution which shares this philosophy, Gentoo,
    after a period of hype is now almost forgotten. People have discovered
    that building from source is a total waste of time, and bring nothing to
    the game except problems. The OpenBSD folks have understood this point
    and are pushing for binary upgrades. Binary packages are the only way to
    get a *reliable* system, in particular for upgrades. At present there is
    no good system for managing such binary packages in FreeBSD, even if
    such packages are continually produced on the FreeBSD cluster. To get
    proper management, i think some small adaptations of the present ports
    system should be necessary - this is non trivial and requires thinking
    to corner cases, reading an UPDATING file should *never* be necessary,
    and consequently the appropriate information should be available
    directly in the ports system - but should represent very little tweaking
    of the present system. Then a tool like aptitude should be built, this
    is considerable work. Of course this is completely independant of
    rewriting or polishing the ports system, whose performance was
    horrendous, but has seen very beneficial performance improvements
    recently.
    Of course, as always, the major obstacle to progress is the conservatism
    of a number of users, very vocal, who think that all is for the best in
    the best of worlds. As a consequence, such discussions regularly emerge
    in the newsgroups or mailing lists, and have exactly zero outcome.
    In general you will be asked to produce a working implementation of
    your ideas, this is the usual magic way of discarding so-called trolls.
    Don't lose your time doing that, nobody will take a look at it.
    While all this interesting discussions take place, as you are saying,
    Ubuntu is storming the market. Probably FreeBSD will become a niche OS,
    used in embedded equipment like Cisco or Juniper, by people who don't
    want to use GPL stuff, hence cannot rely on Linux, but want to profit
    form a competent pool of developers, and a good performant OS, which
    is the case of FreeBSD.







    --

    Michel TALON


  13. Re: gettext/GPLv4 virus infects FreeBSD

    On 06/14/2008 01:52 PM, Michel Talon wrote:
    > Paco wrote:
    >> Give me a break. That's not even tangentially related to whether or not
    >> the ports-maintainer is capable of applying release management best
    >> practices. That's the issue here, industry best practices. FreeBSD
    >> doesn't exist in a vacuume, it exists in a competitive environment.
    >> If sloppy ports release management doesn't diminish FreeBSD's market
    >> share, mindshare, number of users, number of contributors, or the
    >> viability of its future releases, then everything I've ever learned
    >> about software development is wrong.

    >
    > Honestly in every system there are ports which are maintained in a
    > sensible way, and ports which are maintained by clowns. I know some
    > packages in Ubuntu which belong to the last category, even if most
    > packages are good. So you have to judge FreeBSD ports as an ensemble,
    > and, in my opinion, the vast majority of ports are well maintained,
    > up to date, and working. One cannot throw everything out of the window
    > because a small number of ports have ridiculous dependencies or don't
    > work. For me the mere richness of the ports system - the fact that we
    > have 18000 ports - is a considerable asset, similarly for Debian or
    > Ubuntu. I would never trade that for a minuscule number of ports like in
    > OpenBSD, even if considerably audited and polished. This necessarily
    > comes with a price, that a small number of ports are bad.
    > As for the general tools, and philosophy, it is a completely different
    > problem. My opinion is that the general philosophy - building everything
    > from source - is completely wrong, and a major cause of problems in
    > FreeBSD. The Linux distribution which shares this philosophy, Gentoo,
    > after a period of hype is now almost forgotten. People have discovered
    > that building from source is a total waste of time, and bring nothing to
    > the game except problems. The OpenBSD folks have understood this point
    > and are pushing for binary upgrades. Binary packages are the only way to
    > get a *reliable* system, in particular for upgrades. At present there is
    > no good system for managing such binary packages in FreeBSD, even if
    > such packages are continually produced on the FreeBSD cluster. To get
    > proper management, i think some small adaptations of the present ports
    > system should be necessary - this is non trivial and requires thinking
    > to corner cases, reading an UPDATING file should *never* be necessary,
    > and consequently the appropriate information should be available
    > directly in the ports system - but should represent very little tweaking
    > of the present system. Then a tool like aptitude should be built, this
    > is considerable work. Of course this is completely independant of
    > rewriting or polishing the ports system, whose performance was
    > horrendous, but has seen very beneficial performance improvements
    > recently.
    > Of course, as always, the major obstacle to progress is the conservatism
    > of a number of users, very vocal, who think that all is for the best in
    > the best of worlds. As a consequence, such discussions regularly emerge
    > in the newsgroups or mailing lists, and have exactly zero outcome.
    > In general you will be asked to produce a working implementation of
    > your ideas, this is the usual magic way of discarding so-called trolls.
    > Don't lose your time doing that, nobody will take a look at it.
    > While all this interesting discussions take place, as you are saying,
    > Ubuntu is storming the market. Probably FreeBSD will become a niche OS,
    > used in embedded equipment like Cisco or Juniper, by people who don't
    > want to use GPL stuff, hence cannot rely on Linux, but want to profit
    > form a competent pool of developers, and a good performant OS, which
    > is the case of FreeBSD.


    Moreover, FreeBSD developers and, or port maintainers including the
    mentors are quite ignorant and, or reluctant to accept and, or rectify a
    lot of simple flaws in the present ports management and, or build system
    -- for example the upstream qt-x11-opensource-src-4.3.4.tar.gz source
    is (re)extracted and (re)compiled 32 times to build and install the
    following (sub)ports and, or packages:

    qt4-4.3.4_1 qt4-opengl-4.3.4_2
    qt4-accessible-4.3.4_1 qt4-pixeltool-4.3.4_1
    qt4-assistant-4.3.4_1 qt4-porting-4.3.4
    qt4-corelib-4.3.4_1 qt4-qdbusviewer-4.3.4_1
    qt4-dbus-4.3.4_1 qt4-qmake-4.3.4
    qt4-designer-4.3.4_1 qt4-qt3support-4.3.4_2
    qt4-doc-4.3.4 qt4-qtconfig-4.3.4_1
    qt4-gui-4.3.4_2 qt4-qtestlib-4.3.4_1
    qt4-iconengines-4.3.4_1 qt4-qvfb-4.3.4_1
    qt4-imageformats-4.3.4_1 qt4-rcc-4.3.4
    qt4-inputmethods-4.3.4_1 qt4-script-4.3.4_1
    qt4-libQtAssistantClient-4.3.4_1 qt4-sql-4.3.4_1
    qt4-linguist-4.3.4_1 qt4-svg-4.3.4_1
    qt4-makeqpf-4.3.4_1 qt4-uic3-4.3.4_2
    qt4-moc-4.3.4 qt4-uic-4.3.4
    qt4-network-4.3.4_1 qt4-xml-4.3.4_1

    just to sub-divide an upstream package into FreeBSD sub-packages, which
    may easily fill up your disk partition. I'm sure the FreeBSD developers
    are already aware of this and many other such ports and, or packages.

    I'm unable to guess, what religious agony is distracting FreeBSD
    developers in adapting kind of some Debian/Ubuntu build/package
    management system.

    --
    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/

  14. Re: gettext/GPLv4 virus infects FreeBSD

    Balwinder Dheeman wrote:
    >Moreover, FreeBSD developers and, or port maintainers including the
    >mentors are quite ignorant and, or reluctant to accept and, or rectify a
    >lot of simple flaws in the present ports management and, or build system


    It appears they do know, if the traffic on freebsd-ports@ is any
    indication:

    http://www.archivum.info/freebsd-por.../msg00100.html
    > Great, all ports depending on devel/gettext got bumped.
    >
    > My Shell script checks every single library and executable on the system
    > with ldd and it says _nothing is amiss_ after upgrading devel/gettext.
    >
    > Now I am condemned to rebuild ~100 ports, even though it is completely
    > unnecessary. I do not have to tell you that downloading all the distfiles
    > over a GSM connection will take days. And all this for no reason at all!
    >
    > What's going on here?
    >
    > Ldd says it's not necessary. Can anyone really argue with that?


    http://www.archivum.info/freebsd-por.../msg00285.html
    > Remarkable.
    >
    > In my reality, libintl was bumped from so.6 to .so.8 with the update
    > to gettext 0.16.1 and has stayed at .so.8 since. In particular,
    > there was no libintl bump as part of the update to 0.17.


    http://www.archivum.info/freebsd-por.../msg00313.html
    > If that is the case then the gettext warning from 20080605 in
    > /usr/ports/UPDATING was entirely wrong and all the version
    > bumping has been for naught. There was no reason to rebuild
    > anything at all.
    >
    > Even worse than I assumed.


    >I'm unable to guess, what religious agony is distracting FreeBSD
    >developers in adapting kind of some Debian/Ubuntu build/package
    >management system.


    By most metric's FreeBSD ports system is far superior to Linux'
    (front-ends and release management being the obvious exceptions).
    The ability to define compile-time options is *BSD's greatest asset IMO.
    Whereas most Linux distros force a pre-compiled model, FreeBSD allows
    you to upgrade from source or (pre-compiled) packages.

    All we need is a more qualified and experienced engineering team to
    manage the ports tree. Preferably individuals with A) formal systems
    administration training, B) formal software engineering and release
    management training, and C) real-world experience. It does not appear
    that the current team has any of these qualifications :-(

    Paco

  15. Re: gettext/GPLv4 virus infects FreeBSD

    Paco wrote:
    >
    > By most metric's FreeBSD ports system is far superior to Linux'
    > (front-ends and release management being the obvious exceptions).
    > The ability to define compile-time options is *BSD's greatest asset IMO.
    > Whereas most Linux distros force a pre-compiled model, FreeBSD allows
    > you to upgrade from source or (pre-compiled) packages.


    This is total bull****. You can very well compile Linux packages for
    many distros from source and tweak the options as much as you like.
    For the case of Debian Linux, this is described in my comparison:
    http://www.lpthe.jussieu.fr/~talon/freebsdports.html
    There is a Linux distribution whose aim is to compile from source,
    Gentoo, almost nobody uses it, because this is not an asset it is
    a major cause of problems.

    >
    > All we need is a more qualified and experienced engineering team to
    > manage the ports tree. Preferably individuals with A) formal systems
    > administration training, B) formal software engineering and release
    > management training, and C) real-world experience. It does not appear
    > that the current team has any of these qualifications :-(
    >


    First this is extremely obnoxious against people who do that on their
    free time. And second, how do you propose to pay these professionnal,
    competent people who supposedly will manage the ports tree in a more
    efficient way? Hint: the Debian team is around 1000 people, and the
    FreeBSD ports team perhaps around 200 people. Good luck to find the $$$
    able to support a professionnal team of that size.

    > Paco


    --

    Michel TALON


  16. Re: gettext/GPLv4 virus infects FreeBSD

    On 24 Jun 2008 04:21:10 GMT
    Paco wrote:

    > All we need is a more qualified and experienced engineering team to
    > manage the ports tree. Preferably individuals with A) formal systems
    > administration training, B) formal software engineering and release
    > management training, and C) real-world experience. It does not appear
    > that the current team has any of these qualifications :-(


    How about simply a team big enough to do release engineering on a
    collection of nearly 19000 pieces of third party software! Personally I
    think they do a remarkable job of it.

    --
    C:>WIN | Directable Mirror Arrays
    The computer obeys and wins. | A better way to focus the sun
    You lose and Bill collects. | licences available see
    | http://www.sohara.org/

  17. Re: gettext/GPLv4 virus infects FreeBSD

    On 06/24/2008 01:48 PM, Michel Talon wrote:
    > Paco wrote:
    >> By most metric's FreeBSD ports system is far superior to Linux'
    >> (front-ends and release management being the obvious exceptions).
    >> The ability to define compile-time options is *BSD's greatest asset IMO.
    >> Whereas most Linux distros force a pre-compiled model, FreeBSD allows
    >> you to upgrade from source or (pre-compiled) packages.

    >
    > This is total bull****. You can very well compile Linux packages for
    > many distros from source and tweak the options as much as you like.
    > For the case of Debian Linux, this is described in my comparison:
    > http://www.lpthe.jussieu.fr/~talon/freebsdports.html
    > There is a Linux distribution whose aim is to compile from source,
    > Gentoo, almost nobody uses it, because this is not an asset it is
    > a major cause of problems.


    I second that, may I add that only experienced/hardcore and, or somewhat
    biased professionals prefer FreeBSD and, or Gentoo over Debian, Ubuntu
    and, or Fedora; even though there is no documentary proof available on
    the community marketed hype about said performance gains by compiling
    and, or fine-tuning each and every port/package again and again on
    individual development machines; IMHO, that's merely a wastage of time
    and resources. The http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_vs_Others,
    though might slanted, but is quite informative.

    >> All we need is a more qualified and experienced engineering team to
    >> manage the ports tree. Preferably individuals with A) formal systems
    >> administration training, B) formal software engineering and release
    >> management training, and C) real-world experience. It does not appear
    >> that the current team has any of these qualifications :-(
    >>

    >
    > First this is extremely obnoxious against people who do that on their
    > free time. And second, how do you propose to pay these professionnal,
    > competent people who supposedly will manage the ports tree in a more
    > efficient way? Hint: the Debian team is around 1000 people, and the
    > FreeBSD ports team perhaps around 200 people. Good luck to find the $$$
    > able to support a professionnal team of that size.


    We need to increase the user-base, by making the FreeBSD base and ports
    system easy to install, upgrade and, or maintain, which definitely will
    attract more developers also; need I repeat that this one is a basic and
    only principle behind growth and, or survival of most of the Free/Libre
    Open Source Software projects.

    --
    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/

  18. Re: gettext/GPLv4 virus infects FreeBSD

    On 06/24/2008 02:23 PM, Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
    > On 24 Jun 2008 04:21:10 GMT
    > Paco wrote:
    >
    >> All we need is a more qualified and experienced engineering team to
    >> manage the ports tree. Preferably individuals with A) formal systems
    >> administration training, B) formal software engineering and release
    >> management training, and C) real-world experience. It does not appear
    >> that the current team has any of these qualifications :-(

    >
    > How about simply a team big enough to do release engineering on a
    > collection of nearly 19000 pieces of third party software! Personally I
    > think they do a remarkable job of it.


    Sure, that's remarkable indeed, I definitely appreciate the time and
    effort the volunteers are investing in to development of the FreeBSD
    base and ports system. There, however, always is a room for improvement,
    and the rectification of the said flaws in ports build system, I have
    pointed out in an earlier post, would be a superlative melioration.

    --
    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/

  19. Re: gettext/GPLv4 virus infects FreeBSD

    On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:34:40 +0530
    Balwinder S Dheeman wrote:

    > On 06/24/2008 02:23 PM, Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
    > > On 24 Jun 2008 04:21:10 GMT
    > > Paco wrote:
    > >
    > >> All we need is a more qualified and experienced engineering team to
    > >> manage the ports tree. Preferably individuals with A) formal systems
    > >> administration training, B) formal software engineering and release
    > >> management training, and C) real-world experience. It does not appear
    > >> that the current team has any of these qualifications :-(

    > >
    > > How about simply a team big enough to do release engineering on
    > > a collection of nearly 19000 pieces of third party software! Personally
    > > I think they do a remarkable job of it.

    >
    > Sure, that's remarkable indeed, I definitely appreciate the time and
    > effort the volunteers are investing in to development of the FreeBSD
    > base and ports system. There, however, always is a room for improvement,
    > and the rectification of the said flaws in ports build system, I have
    > pointed out in an earlier post, would be a superlative melioration.


    So you have patches and/or time to contribute that will improve
    matters ?

    --
    C:>WIN | Directable Mirror Arrays
    The computer obeys and wins. | A better way to focus the sun
    You lose and Bill collects. | licences available see
    | http://www.sohara.org/

  20. Re: gettext/GPLv4 virus infects FreeBSD

    On 06/24/2008 04:12 PM, Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
    > On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:34:40 +0530
    > Balwinder S Dheeman wrote:
    >
    >> On 06/24/2008 02:23 PM, Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
    >>> On 24 Jun 2008 04:21:10 GMT
    >>> Paco wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> All we need is a more qualified and experienced engineering team to
    >>>> manage the ports tree. Preferably individuals with A) formal systems
    >>>> administration training, B) formal software engineering and release
    >>>> management training, and C) real-world experience. It does not appear
    >>>> that the current team has any of these qualifications :-(
    >>> How about simply a team big enough to do release engineering on
    >>> a collection of nearly 19000 pieces of third party software! Personally
    >>> I think they do a remarkable job of it.

    >> Sure, that's remarkable indeed, I definitely appreciate the time and
    >> effort the volunteers are investing in to development of the FreeBSD
    >> base and ports system. There, however, always is a room for improvement,
    >> and the rectification of the said flaws in ports build system, I have
    >> pointed out in an earlier post, would be a superlative melioration.

    >
    > So you have patches and/or time to contribute that will improve
    > matters ?


    Yeah, I already am contributing as much time and, or effort as I can by
    installing, compiling, testing and, or exploring around 800 ports or
    packages. IMHO, every FreeBSD user, somehow, is/can be a contributor
    even by providing good feedback.

    FYKI, I also am a maintainer/submitter, though for few FreeBSD ports at
    the moment, please see http://cto.homelinux.net/ports, but the list may
    grow and, or shrink in the near future depending upon the responsiveness
    of the FreeBSD mentors and time I may spare at early fifties

    As for as the rectification of the flaws in FreeBSD ports build and, or
    packaging system are concerned, well, though that's not a small job, I
    positively, shall try contributing patches and, or suggestions for the same.

    --
    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/

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast