Code: Select all
pkg-static update -f -r ghostbsd-weeklyThanks.ericbsd wrote:I think it is a good idea.
Hi kraileth, glad to read from you. How are you ? Hopefully you have recovered your illness.kraileth wrote:Totally agree that this was not a moment of glory for FreeBSD... I was also hit by that problem again.
we never tough about going to FreeBSD-stable.However: There are different assumptions about what stable means and it's probably not a good term at all. In case of FreeBSD branches "stable" is actually less stable than "release" because that name comes from the fact that the ABI is stable. And regarding the repos as far as I understand things "stable" means that there's less fluctuation in version numbers, only upgrading to newer major versions if necessary for security reasons (e.g. Chromium). That doesn't mean that it always provides a system that's always stable unfortunately... Same thing about FreeBSD's reputation as being "extremely stable". It (at least partly) means that FreeBSD has the POLA and how you use the system doesn't change rapidly and radically if possible (and never without announcing it first).
Hmm ... guess you missed my point: while in theory "quarterly" should have been more stable/reliable, in practice it has demonstrate that failed completely in that respect, there are already 3 forum post about that, plus one user who asked for help on IRC, and you too was hitted.That said, I like the idea of the quarterly package repo for some cases. Namely if you don't want your applications to change all the time or if you do not want to big downloads too often. People who come to try out a BSD desktop are probably looking for that kind of stability, too. That's why I'd vote to stick with quarterly for the production repo.
We can do something better really, implementing an utility to switch repository.We as devs should definitely use "latest" so we find out early when something breaks. Of course we should put a guide on the wiki that shows how to change to the "latest" branche (and ask people interested in it to help testing).
Yes, I'm fine, thanks! Just really low on time right now due to various things (I tried to hop on IRC for about a week now but missed it every single evening).ASX wrote:Hi kraileth, glad to read from you. How are you ? Hopefully you have recovered your illness.
Oh, actually I suggested this a while ago (not moving and dropping -RELEASE, though, but creating an additional branch for development and more experienced users). And if I remember correctly, Eric wrote that he thought about something like this, too. I don't think we can handle this right now, but whenever we switch to packaged base in the future (one version after FreeBSD, with 11.2 perhaps?) this would become an option. But yeah, even though it's kind of related to the current question we should probably discuss this seperately.we never tough about going to FreeBSD-stable.
No, I got your point and I agree to it. Just wanted to point out that there's another benefit to "quaterly": Not changing software versions all the time. There are people who like the "rolling" release approach and there are people who hate it. For the -STABLE / snapshot branch (totally needs another name as "stable" is completely missleading!) touched on above I'd definitely want "latest" enabled by default. But I IMO "quaterly" has it's value (version stability + necessary fixes) even though it fails to provide more application stability. The latter would have been very nice and I guess that in theory it actually was one of the reasons why FreeBSD adopted "quaterly" in the first place.Hmm ... guess you missed my point: while in theory "quarterly" should have been more stable/reliable, in practice it has demonstrate that failed completely in that respect, there are already 3 forum post about that, plus one user who asked for help on IRC, and you too was hitted.
That's totally true and a utility makes sense! I also wonder if we can provide some other means to protect agains bad updates as well. For ZFS based systems, BEs would be very cool. But even UFS supports snapshots - maybe we could build something that makes recovering easier? Like snapshotting the local package cache dir prior to downloading and installing the new ones? If something fails we could have users boot into text mode and run something like "ghostbsd-recover-packages" which force installs the old packages over the system again. Keeping the old repo on our server(s) is a good thing but keeping a local cache as well can definitely be beneficial for people who don't want to download everything again.We can do something better really, implementing an utility to switch repository.
Do not forget that a user with a broken system has no easy way to read documentation.
we will have a backup repo, but referred to the "latest/head" branch.[/quote]The idea to keep a backup of the previous good repo e.g. when the quarterly rotates to the new one. Also ZFS might be a good thing to make use of, too.
