Solved Is a base system replacement for bootstrapping ports being created?

astyle said:
I don't see why exactly... If you pay attention to the quarterly announcements, and do timely snapshots, it shouldn't be too much of an issue.
Click to expand...
Quarterly branches receive selected updates (MFH) as well, e.g. for security reasons or to fix (bad) breakage. Portsnap does not support them.
 
Zirias said:
Quarterly branches receive selected updates (MFH) as well, e.g. for security reasons or to fix (bad) breakage. Portsnap does not support them.
Click to expand...
If somebody can actually figure THAT out, AND understand the importance, it's not that hard to use Portsnap accordingly. You can actually feed a list of ports to portsnap extract.
 
astyle said:
If somebody can actually figure THAT out, AND understand the importance, it's not that hard to use Portsnap accordingly. You can actually feed a list of ports to portsnap extract.
Click to expand...
This, apart from being a horrible workaround, won't work correctly either. MFHs are cherry-picked, so chances are you'd pull in unrelated changes that are only meant to be on the "main" branch.

Side note: this probably won't go wrong for security fixes, cause FreeBSD ports don't go down this Debian-style rabbit hole, trying to "backport" all these – the fix is just the newer port version.

BUT: It might go wrong for the class of MFHs fixing build issues, it will definitely go wrong for those fixing framework (/usr/ports/Mk) issues. Might be rare, but still, this just isn't a solution. Portsnap is "broken" regarding quarterly, and trying to work around that is, IMHO, moot.
 
Zirias said:
This, apart from being a horrible workaround, won't work correctly either. MFHs are cherry-picked, so chances are you'd pull in unrelated changes that are only meant to be on the "main" branch.

Side note: this probably won't go wrong for security fixes, cause FreeBSD ports don't go down this Debian-style rabbit hole, trying to "backport" all these – the fix is just the newer port version.

BUT: It might go wrong for the class of MFHs fixing build issues, it will definitely go wrong for those fixing framework (/usr/ports/Mk) issues. Might be rare, but still, this just isn't a solution. Portsnap is "broken" regarding quarterly, and trying to work around that is, IMHO, moot.
Click to expand...
BTW, what is MFH? I'm not familiar with that acronym...

The way I'm reading your post is that yeah, there are use cases for which portsnap is too simple, and won't handle them correctly, and working around them is too much work. But for my purposes, portsnap is fantastic - if I pay attention. If I want to go beyond that, I'll take the time to learn git. There's an appropriate tool for every task.
So my vote would be to retain portsnap in base.
 
Zirias said:
BUT: Mixing two different branches is definitely recipe for instant disaster.
Click to expand...
I think an issue is that the disaster isn't necessarily instant. You may get away with it for a while, forget what you did, and then at some point months later you end up in a pickle because there's a mix of ports and packages.
 
Zirias said:
Not sure what you're trying to show with that? Yes, fetching latest(!) ports with portsnap (still) works. It still works because obviously, some people opposed to getting rid of it more quickly, and as a result, the team had to do all the work to adapt portsnap's backend after switching to git – only to get a tool that does a little part of what git (or svn) can do in a less efficient (more disk space incl metadata, slower speed) way…
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what's broke about it either. it works for me like it always has.

And, yes, i know freebsd-update fetch nd pkg audit are not portsnap. They aren't even close in spelling. They are 3 commands I use together on a daily basis as system maintenance. Hence the "That's the way I like to see things. Working like they should" statement I made

You know what I am sure of though? And what makes my day? Thanks to linesteppr I looked at the portsnap link he provided and 16 years later find out all the times I've told the self-deprecating story about asking where I could find portsnap in the ports tree in 2005, thinking it was asking about a command all these years, I was right all along.

Trihexagonal said:
Code: 
07 Jan 2009 21:34:27 -  Remove portsnap port, it's now integrated into the base system
Click to expand...

Not one person told me about it then at the PC-BSD forums and not one person has mentioned it in the 16 years that followed. And I've told that story several times.

But that was a long time ago and I just remembered the hard parts. I evidently found it, taught myself to use ports and was not quite as dumb as I gave myself credit for back then. I continued to believe it all these years until I realized it a little later after posting Sunday.

And I figured that on my own, too, just how learned to prefer to do things. I can never repay you all the debt of gratitude owed had I not been allowed to sink or swim on my own. My Swedish heritage working in my favor.

Now tie to go do Chinese laundry. Chop chop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top