Just a little push for FreeBSD

icodeforyou I can only assume: dependencies of "official" packages. If something depends on pgsql, it can only depend on one specific version. That's why ports offer you DEFAULT_VERSIONS, so you can override the default choice when building yourself.

But then, I still don't get the point, because, at some point in time, you must make the decision to move to another version for your default package builds. That's very much the same for a Linux distribution...
 
Zirias said:
it can only depend on one specific version
Click to expand...
Correct.
Zirias said:
so you can override the default choice when building yourself
Click to expand...
Hence the original statement about overhauling the update scheme [from binaries to source building].

Zirias said:
at some point in time
Click to expand...
The time is more predictable and has longer prep time when done with major releases, or even more predictable when versioned, versus ports that change these dependencies... whenever, maybe even real close to the end of the quarter.
 
Zirias said:
Uhm no, what they're saying (and this was stated more explicitly, not sure it's still online though) is that Debian's "official" packages are patched broken beyond repair. And having tried one of them, I can confirm that...
Click to expand...
I only see
* Don't use the packages because they are not supported (by rspamd official, the ones making this notice, because they can't speak for Debian)
* Issues with them should never be taken up with rspamd (who knows why, but absent your 404'ed memory hole, I think my guess is better: rspamd hates supporting outdated packages they already "fixed" in another version)
 
msplsh I already told you there was a more explicit version in the past, telling how horribly broken Debian's packages are (and, again, they are indeed, I used them for a short time before dicovering that notice, and lots of stuff didn't work as it should, and no, that wasn't related to the version.). Still, this sentence that's still there should give you a clue:
Any issues or feature requests related to the packages from Debian provided distros will be closed with no feedback (or even rage feedback).
Click to expand...
Noone in the world would ever give "rage feedback" if all it was about was some older version.

Large projects typically have release and support cycles. Trying to force them into the same cycle as your distribution creates tons of problems. This has been discussed for a long time in general, see e.g. 2004 posts here and here. Debian has a history of breaking stuff with their own patches, the most well-known incident being about OpenSSL in 2008 (actually introduced 2 years earlier IIRC). Patching software you don't know intimately is always somewhat dangerous.

msplsh said:
The time is more predictable and has longer prep time when done with major releases, or even more predictable when versioned, versus ports that change these dependencies... whenever, maybe even real close to the end of the quarter.
Click to expand...
FreeBSD ports keep software as close to upstream as possible, and changing a default version is typically done some time before the old version would be EOL, so the change makes it into the next quarterly branch (or, only in some exceptional cases when other software needs features of the newer major release).

That's the only way to do it reliably, you'll find the same with every "rolling release" Linux dist. You can have the quarterly snapshots, to reduce the frequency of possible work for the admin. In contrast to such a rolling release Linux dist, you still have your stable and supported base system with FreeBSD.

Just imagine people in the Windows world would expect their application software upgrade cycles tied to the OS (so, this could be MSSQL server, Sharepoint, IIS, .....). It would never work. Debian can attempt to do something like that because the software distributed is open-source, but as said above, just patching away yourself is risky, especially when it concerns security fixes.
 
You can run Debian as rolling release but there is no official security support.

Like I said earlier, you lot need to learn that it isn't a competition.

Citing examples from 2004 and 2008 is stupid. Just pointing out Zirias' hypocrisy, the linked article needs no further discussion.
 
Zirias said:
Noone in the world would ever give "rage feedback" if all it was about was some older version.
Click to expand...
I think you underestimate the illogical of the world.

Zirias said:
default version is typically done some time before the old version would be EOL,
Click to expand...
This is just wrong, unless you mean something else by "End of Life". PostgreSQL 10 is still in ports and is still being supported with security patches upstream, yet the default version just got bumped from 12 to 13 on 20211024, indicating that 12 and 11 have plenty of time still left in them. This is about one month before the quarterly cutoff, too, which is not "real close" but pretty close to giving you the minimum amount of time to prepare.

I'm not asking for rolling release, I'm just saying a versioned pkg/ports tree would be good. Maybe then they would stop seemingly random scheduled breaking changes that require manual interventions. I could even deal with not doing FreeBSD-supplied, backported security patches: just tag them so they throw a scary warning like we do now.

Anyway, the entire comment was intended to give a concrete example that the FreeBSD community should not throw stones.
 
I have been analyzing security fixes for Debian, Ubuntu, Centos and FreeBSD for all my clients software stack and I can tell you Debian and FreeBSD are the fastest most of the time. Debian/Ubuntu updates do not break as often as some claim here and it is right that updating packages on those distribution is less work and involves less thinking/reading, however, quite often bugfixes (we have been very rarely hit by them) are not backported by the distro maintainers.

So imho, reading on updates and keeping package versions mostly in sync with upstream is worth the effort most of the time - minor incremental updates are often less of a hurdle in total than e.g. a Debian distribution upgrade where the upgrade script tries to bring your configs to the new versions (here I have better experience with Debian than with Ubuntu).

But then, we FreeBSD users e.g. currently have samba server version 4.13 as the newest version which was discontinued in march this year.
 
rootbert said:
But then, we FreeBSD users e.g. currently have samba server version 4.13 as the newest version which was discontinued in march this year.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's a representative thing, but it's indeed a bad situation. I already had a look at the port, unfortunately it's quite complex, and it seems so far, a single person worked on keeping samba up to date. :oops:
 
eternal_noob said:
Deleting your Facebook / Meta account is a tech decision you won't regret either.
Click to expand...
I tried to do that recently, but because I logged in from a new device that wasn't running Windows, they flagged my session as suspicious, even though I was using 2FA :(

Maybe I will have more luck today
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top