Greetings / Project Goals - Minix

This is a discussion on Greetings / Project Goals - Minix ; On Aug 31, 6:39*pm, João Jerónimo wrote: > > Honestly, I don't like those answers. It might be fine for a hobby > > computer, but I woudn't use something like that ona *production server > > for example. > ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 42 of 42

Thread: Greetings / Project Goals

  1. Re: Greetings / Project Goals

    On Aug 31, 6:39*pm, João Jerónimo
    wrote:
    > > Honestly, I don't like those answers. It might be fine for a hobby
    > > computer, but I woudn't use something like that ona *production server
    > > for example.

    >
    > I don't see any advantage of using five-year-old software when a couple of
    > much better versions have came out since then. Also, as I mentioned, _old
    > packages usually remain in the ftp servers for very long time_.
    >
    > It's however possible that I only say this because I don't usually
    > administrate servers...


    I don't think that it is the distribution's job to tell me whether I
    can have old software in my server. Second, you are making an
    assumption when you say 5 years, there is no guarantee that this will
    hold for each of the 2000 packages that might be in my system.
    Finally, it is not that uncommon for a server to run 5 year-old
    software. Ubuntu's LTS releases are supported for 5 years. The space
    shuttle runs on computers from the 1970s, and there were even some
    companies running old MULTICS mainframes until the late 1990s. The
    last MULTICS mainframe was shut down in October 2000.


    > Actually, once I run I Gentoo-based server and had
    > the update command on cron. One time, an inocent grub update rendered the
    > system unbootable, and I lost one entire day trying to find where the
    > problem was... It happened that the configuration file's name has
    > changed... :-)


    That sort of thing is not acceptable in many applications. It's ok in
    some circumstances, but I wouldn't want that to happen to an air
    traffic controller or a nuclear power plant.


    > I don't see it as bleeding edge, but rather as keeping updated.


    Well, that's a point of view. In Debian world, keeping updated (ie.
    using the latest non-development release of every package) means using
    the "unstable" distribution. It's permanently cod-named "Sid", after
    the kid from Toy Story who breaks all his toys. A lot of people in
    Debian world love Sid. It works quite well, it has the latest stable
    packages for everything, and it is more than stable enough for any
    desktop. But still, Sid is not nearly as stable as the Debian "stable"
    distribution.

    For my desktop I would choose Debian Sid. For a production server I
    would choose Debian stable.


    > Normal distributions usually don't have any automated method for doing heavy
    > updates. They only ship security fixes and so...
    > This is a limitation, because you can't keep updated unless you "break the
    > rules".


    RPM distributions are like that. With Debian you can move to a new
    distribution with 'apt-get dist-upgrade', and if you use Sid you get
    access to current software forever without having to move to anything
    else.

    Daniel.

  2. Re: Greetings / Project Goals

    On Aug 31, 6:11*pm, Angel wrote:
    > Daniel Carrera wrote:
    > > But the way I read the documentation for source install, it essetially
    > > says to download the tar-ball yourself and then run make && make install

    >
    > Where does it say so? *Please have a look at
    >
    > http://www.netbsd.org/docs/pkgsrc/us...ld-and-install
    >
    > where it says:
    >
    > * * * * For example, type
    > * * * * % cd misc/figlet
    > * * * * % make
    >
    > * * * * at the shell prompt to build the various components of the package.
    >
    > * * * * The next stage is to actually install the newly compiled program onto
    > * * * * your system. Do this by entering:
    > * * * * % make install
    >
    > * * * * while you are still in the directory for whatever packageyou are
    > * * * * installing.


    Yes, that's the section I was thinking of. See how it says to run
    "make" and "make install". I don't see where the package manager comes
    in. Unless maybe "make install" calls the package manager.

    Could you confirm that if you compile from source the package manager
    will know about the package? Does "make install" call the package
    manager in some way?

    My main questions about pkgsrc are:

    1) If you compile the sources, will the package manager know about
    them?
    2) Does it download and configure the sources automatically?

    Thanks
    Daniel.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3