Re: Question about packages
From: Milscvaer (millueradfa_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 09/30/05
- Previous message: Parv: "Re: Problems with IPF after upgrading from 4.11 to 5.4"
- In reply to: Charles Swiger: "Re: Question about packages"
- Next in thread: Andrew P.: "Re: Question about packages"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 15:00:48 -0700 (PDT) To: Charles Swiger <cswiger@mac.com>
Thank you for your replies, it is greatly appreciated.
Yes, I do believe in making donations to the FreeBSD
project, and I have done so many times.
FreeBSD is my preferred operating system and it is
well worth it. I have tried both NetBSD and OpenBSD
before both of which failed to run at all on my
hardware, FreeBSD is the only thing that will run on
many of computers and which has the features I need so
I am a big supporter and proponent of FreeBSD to say
the least.
Thank you agian.
--- Charles Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> wrote:
> On Sep 29, 2005, at 4:38 PM, Milscvaer wrote:
> > How often are the binary packages in 5-stable for
> instance
> > rebuilt to the latest version? It is pretty
> critical
> > to keep these updated constantly, preferably every
> > day, to get the latest security fixes in a new
> version
> > of a package. I noticed that Firefox still seems
> to be
> > at 1.0.6 even though 1.0.7 has been out for
> several
> > days. Does FreeBSD have a system set up where when
> a
> > port is upgraded to a new version, the binary
> package
> > for the port is automatically rebuilt soon after,
> such
> > as at least within the next day so that the latest
> > version in ports is also avialable as a binary
> > package. This is very essential. I hope such a
> feature
> > can be provided.
>
> The cluster of machines used to build precompiled
> packages operates
> pretty much continuously, as you can see for
> yourself at:
>
> http://pointyhat.freebsd.org/errorlogs/
>
> As this link says, "Last full run on 5.x-stable
> [i386 (2005-09-27
> 05:24)]" was two days ago, and a new run is in
> progress which ought
> to have Firefox 1.0.7 and anything else which has
> been updated since
> the last run was started. Note that building 13000
> ports takes quite
> a while, so expecting less than 24-hour turnaround
> for binary
> packages might be too optimistic.
>
> So if you want software updated more quickly, build
> it yourself--
> updating the 10 ports that you actually use is a lot
> easier than
> building everything. Or you could donate more
> hardware to the
> FreeBSD project, or even set up your own build
> cluster if you think
> you can do a better job.
>
> > Does also, is anything done to avoid the situation
> > where an older program needs an older version of a
> > dependancies and a newer program needs a newer
> version
> > of the same depedancy?
>
> Why, yes, people use shared library version numbers,
> or they install
> to different base prefixes, or any number of similar
> methods. For
> popular software like the Berkeley DB, this support
> is well-
> integrated into the ports system and the options
> menu that many ports
> will display, using WITH_BDB_VER. These mechanisms
> are documented in
> the Porter's Handbook here:
>
>
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/
>
> makefile-options.html#AEN2286
>
> > Does portupgrade leave older versions of a library
> > dependancy in place when installing a new version
> of
> > such a dependancy, so that applications that
> require
> > the newer version of the dependancy can use the
> new
> > version, while applications that need the older
> > version can use the older version?
>
> Yes, it does. Consider the output of "du -a
> /usr/local/lib/compat/"...
>
> --
> -Chuck
>
>
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
- Previous message: Parv: "Re: Problems with IPF after upgrading from 4.11 to 5.4"
- In reply to: Charles Swiger: "Re: Question about packages"
- Next in thread: Andrew P.: "Re: Question about packages"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
