Slashdot Mirror


NetBSD to Freeze pkgsrc Tree

jschauma writes "Alistair Crooks announced today that the NetBSD Packages Team will start a freeze on the pkgsrc tree in order to prepare for the release of the fourth stable branch, pkgsrc-2004Q4. The freeze will begin on December 6th 2004, and will last for a maximum of 2 weeks, during which the developers will bring down the PR count and fix problems shown by the bulk builds."

51 comments

  1. Questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    - What does the PR count count?
    - Is the pkgsrc tree the source tree for the entire distribution?
    - Two-space tabs or three?

    1. Re:Questions by Noryungi · · Score: 1

      What does the PR count count?

      The number of opened bugs remaining in the pkgsrc tree.

      Is the pkgsrc tree the source tree for the entire distribution?

      Nope. The pkgsrc is the source tree for the software that can be installed on a NetBSD system.

      Two-space tabs or three?

      It's up to you. Edit your ~/.vimrc file to change this. You are using vim, right? ;-)

      --
      The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
    2. Re:Questions by hubertf · · Score: 4, Informative
      What does the PR count count?

      PR = Problem Reports, containing both submissions of new packages for pkgsrc, as well as problems with existing problems. Some of them with fixes included and easy to fix, others with no fixes included and only happening when you run them on some obscure configurations at full moon.

      Is the pkgsrc tree the source tree for the entire distribution?

      No, NetBSD is a complete operating system on it's own, with a defined set of functionality and programs, all in one source tree[1]. Additional 3rd party software for building a webserver, database server, desktop system etc. can be installed from either pkgsrc or a precompiled (binary) package.


      - Hubert

      [1] See cvsweb.netbsd.org for a web interface to the complete source of the operating system, running on 50+ hardware platforms in the "src" module.

    3. Re:Questions by DashEvil · · Score: 1

      I really wish you guys would commit the patch for the nsec build issue. I don't know the details, and I can't find it on google now (I only find it by using the error message I get), but every time I go to cross build NetBSD from my FreeBSD 5.x i386 box to my SPARCstation (which I have to do because the 2.0 GENERIC kernel is too big) it fails on ./build.sh -m sparc tools or whatever. Then I have to hunt down the error message, find the patch, apply it, and it works.

      I'm sure you're aware of it, is there any reason you're not applying it? It'd save me a bit of a hassle if you did. :D

      But really, the NetBSD build infastructure is the coolest. I'm keeping the tooldir and objdir around and using them to port this project I'm working on to SPARC.

      --
      -If God wanted people to be better than me, he would have made them that way.
    4. Re:Questions by LizardKing · · Score: 3, Informative

      What does the PR count count?

      The number of opened bugs remaining in the pkgsrc tree.

      Not just bugs. There are also PR's that include patches to update versions of the software in pkgsrc as well as new package submissions.

      Is the pkgsrc tree the source tree for the entire distribution?

      Nope. The pkgsrc is the source tree for the software that can be installed on a NetBSD system.

      There's been an intermittent project to turn the base system into packages, but I don't have any references handy. For now, you can install Xorg from pkgsrc rather than XFree86 at install time, and this is what I've been doing lately.

      Two-space tabs or three

      It's up to you. Edit your ~/.vimrc file to change this. You are using vim, right? ;-)

      Four spaces like the Lord intended.

    5. Re:Questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're sure we know what you're talking about, but you don't know yourself. Riight.

      Send a PR. Provide details.

    6. Re:Questions by DashEvil · · Score: 1

      I got the patch from a PR. That's why I assumed SOMEONE knew about it. Everytime I try to do it, I get this error message - search for it - find a NetBSD PR with the patch. I mean, it's really easy to hit, just try to build the NetBSD sources on a FreeBSD 5 host. I'm sorry that I can't find the PR now, and that I don't know exactly what it is off hand.

      --
      -If God wanted people to be better than me, he would have made them that way.
  2. Re:I'm not dead yet! by satanami69 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Too bad the article says you're going to be cryogenically frozen over the next two weeks. Hopefully I'll be around to welcome you to the world of tomorrow.

    --
    I really hate Dan Patrick.
  3. metamod by bhima · · Score: 1
    just after I meta-modded the same comment as off-topic...

    as a Cobalt Qube2 user let me say....WHOOT!

    --
    Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
  4. Great! So which version(s) of NetBSD can run this? by RLiegh · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If I want to use their pre-built packages, do I have to be running the latest CVS, or can 1.6 handle it?

  5. Re:Great! So which version(s) of NetBSD can run th by jschauma · · Score: 4, Informative

    The latest binary packages currently available are built under 1.6.2 and should therefor run just fine under 1.6.x (including 1.6.0). Given that the 2.0 release is coming Really Really Soon Now (tm), it's a pretty safe assumption that after the freeze the binary packages from the new branch will be built under NetBSD 2.0. Of course a 2.0 kernel can run older binaries (if you have the necesary COMPAT options(4) in your kernel). In addition, pkg_add(1) will warn/complain/fail depending on the discrepancy of the version under which the binary package was built compared to the version you are running.

    --

    -- "Tradition is the illusion of permanence."
  6. Re:Great! So which version(s) of NetBSD can run th by setagllib · · Score: 4, Informative

    Not mentioned above is that you can set PKG_PATH to fetch the packages from a 1.6.2 (or whatever) directory on the FTP server(s). This is what you should do possibly in csh.login or whatever you use, but note that you have to unset PKG_PATH before doing pkgsrc work (it will warn you about this).

    Any reason not to upgrade to 2.0, though? It's managed not to be bloated which is a huge plus. The only downside is that the new gcc is very slow (that's GNU for you) compared to 2.95, but can generate faster code sometimes. You can build and install a netbsd-2-0 CVS tree on a 1.6 system (build.sh) and install it right over. But remember - kernel (with COMPAT_16) first, reboot, THEN world!

    --
    Sam ty sig.
  7. *BSD is technically superior, but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    ..say what you want, there are reasons for using it that are definitely more compelling. :)
    http://www.keltia.net/photos/Bellamy/Daemonette/da emonette_bg1024_tr.jpg

    1. Re:*BSD is technically superior, but.. by setagllib · · Score: 1

      There are many more images than that, many of which include real women :)

      But that's also good, worth keeping. Writing to my memory...
      syncing brain... 42 7 done

      --
      Sam ty sig.
    2. Re:*BSD is technically superior, but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always wondered what those numbers after "sync'ing disks" meant.

    3. Re:*BSD is technically superior, but.. by setagllib · · Score: 1

      Number of dirty buffers left. Notice how they count down, and at 0, it's done?

      It's more obvious in FreeBSD 5 which has a completely broken sync system, where dirty buffers sometimes go UP, and can take 30 seconds to sync it all... and wait for 3 consecutive 0s before completing. I remember when that change was first brought in and thinking "okay, time to move to NetBSD".

      --
      Sam ty sig.
  8. Re:Great! So which version(s) of NetBSD can run th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only downside is that the new gcc is very slow (that's GNU for you)

    Why not just switch to a BSD licenced compiler then?

    If one doesn't exist, the BSD community could simply write it. It would certainly be faster, more stable and "cleaner" than any of the alternatives. I'm sure it wouldn't take the hordes of BSD developers more than a week to complete.

    Of course the only evidence for this would be anecdotal and God help anyone who dared to publish a benchmark.

    On a serious note, I used to wonder why the BSD community got trolled so much. Then I came across such wonderful examples of advocacy as those produced by our friend "setagllib". Your attitude attracts ASCII art Goatse trolls in much the same way as shit attracts flies.

    To preempt your inevitable reply, no I am not a Linux user. I just find the majority of your posts arrogant and unhelpful.

  9. Re:Great! So which version(s) of NetBSD can run th by ulib · · Score: 1
    [setagllib:]
    >The only downside is that the new gcc is very slow (that's GNU for you) compared to 2.95, but can generate faster code sometimes.

    [Anonymous Coward:]
    Why not just switch to a BSD licenced compiler then?
    If one doesn't exist, the BSD community could simply write it. It would certainly be faster, more stable and "cleaner" than any of the alternatives. I'm sure it wouldn't take the hordes of BSD developers more than a week to complete.
    Of course the only evidence for this would be anecdotal and God help anyone who dared to publish a benchmark.
    On a serious note, I used to wonder why the BSD community got trolled so much. Then I came across such wonderful examples of advocacy as those produced by our friend "setagllib". Your attitude attracts ASCII art Goatse trolls in much the same way as shit attracts flies.
    To preempt your inevitable reply, no I am not a Linux user. I just find the majority of your posts arrogant and unhelpful.

    I'm ready to bet that you are not only a Linux user, but a GNU zealot of the worst kind. Dear AC.

    From time to time, it happens to say things in a way that offends some touchy people. Anyway, I still have to see a *single* BSD advocate deliberately spreading FUD over GNU/Linux. I see GNU/Linux advocates spreading FUD over *BSD everyday - and this has gone on for *years*. The "BSD is dying" campaign is just the most prominent example.

    I remember a discussion some time ago (on OSnews if I recall correctly). It was a licensing issue - BSD vs GPL. Surprise, surprise.. :) - and I stepped out of line by making a slightly inaccurate statement. Guess what, another BSD user stepped in and corrected me, asking me to be more precise.
    On the other hand, look at the FUD the GNU zealots are deliberately spreading on this board. This shouldn't be considered an acceptable behaviour among civilized people. And guess what, how many GNU/Linux advocates do you see stepping in (and, I'd say, defending *their own* reputation)? Easy answer: none, never.

    There's a simple reason for this. GNU people think they're on a holy war: Stallman says that proprietary software is "immoral", and talks about "fundamental freedoms" that are violated when you get a software without the source included.
    It happens too often that these statements aren't generating the sound laughter that such words are calling for. Nope, they're taken seriously. And the obvious logical consequence is that in this holy war, where "freedom" is at stake, any means are legitimate - spreading FUD, creating destructive viruses, anything. The objective is no longer to produce better software, or to maintain decency: is to sink BigEvilCorporations and proprietary software. BSD's in the way? Well, let's try to sink it as well. If the means (FUD) are dishonest and disgusting, well who cares, it's for a good cause. It's for morality, it's for "freedom".

    A BSD advocate is mainly interested in technical excellence. A Linux advocate is mainly interested in winning the holy war against proprietary software. This alone is enough to explain the different levels of decency, and the different opinions on what can be considered an acceptable behaviour, that are characterizing the GNU and BSD communities.

    The worst thing is, I see no easy way this issue in the GNU/Linux community can be resolved over time. Well, maybe if they finally manage to lock up their most "religious" leaders in a nuthouse. Cos that's where they belong.

  10. Errata by ulib · · Score: 1

    Damn my English.. This twisted sentence
    "From time to time, it happens to say things in a way that offends some touchy people"
    should have been like this
    "From time to time, things are said in a way that offends some touchy people"
    I should stick to shorter posts. Easier to proofread ;)

  11. Portability makes NetBSD different by BigBanana · · Score: 0

    NetBSD specializes on portability. This means that all the software in the base system is as hardware independent as possible. It also means that NetBSD is as lightweight as possible -- such an operating system is easy to carry around. It is the emphasis on portability that makes NetBSD an exciting Operating System -- NetBSD is compact, stable, cleanly designed and secure. Also the performance is excellent, NetBSD feels quite snappy on my laptop and especially networking is REALLY fast (hey, it isn't called NETbsd for nothing). ;-)

    1. Re:Portability makes NetBSD different by setagllib · · Score: 1

      Exactly. As they say, when you have the same code run with the right glue on countless different hardware (especially CPU) configurations, you tend to notice problems much quicker. If something is bloated you might not even notice on a fast x86, but run it on a vax and it comes up. Security works the same way, and that's why OpenBSD ports, to see if anything comes up.

      Some systems run on many archs but don't take advantage of it properly, by having redundant code and not abstracting properly. Defeats a big advantage of portability, really.

      NetBSD's bragging rights like supporting "USB on Apple Power Macintosh machines before Apple had MacOS X even booting" are just evidence of this. They had USB support on x86 just fine - all it took was supporting the basic differences of the Mac system and the machine-independent drivers just worked. And if there were any problems, they would have been fixed, potentially benefiting all implementations.

      The one curious issue of NetBSD's otherwise amazing hardware support is the breakage of the Tulip LAN driver. No clue about that.

      --
      Sam ty sig.
  12. Requiem for the FUD by ulib · · Score: 4, Informative
    ... facts are facts. ;)

    FreeBSD:
    FreeBSD, Stealth-Growth Open Source Project (Jun 2004)
    "FreeBSD has dramatically increased its market penetration over the last year."
    Nearly 2.5 Million Active Sites running FreeBSD (Jun 2004)
    "[FreeBSD] has a secured a strong foothold with the hosting community and continues to grow, gaining over a million hostnames and half a million active sites since July 2003."
    What's New in the FreeBSD Network Stack (Sep 2004)
    "FreeBSD can now route 1Mpps on a 2.8GHz Xeon whilst Linux can't do much more than 100kpps."

    NetBSD:
    NetBSD sets Internet2 Land Speed World Record (May 2004)
    NetBSD again sets Internet2 Land Speed World Record (30 Sep 2004)

    OpenBSD:
    OpenBSD Widens Its Scope (Nov 2004)
    Review: OpenBSD 3.6 shows steady improvement (Nov 2004)

    *BSD in general:
    Deep study: The world's safest computing environment
    "The world's safest and most secure 24/7 online computing environment - operating system plus applications - is proving to be the Open Source platform of BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) and the Mac OS X based on Darwin."
    ..and last but not least, we have the cutest mascot as well - undisputedly. ;)

    --
    Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.

    1. Re:Requiem for the FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does this have to do with the story?

    2. Re:Requiem for the FUD by mirabilos · · Score: 1

      MirBSD: being out for >2 years, continuous improvements
      in quality, actuality, smallity(?) and number of
      both users and developers.

      http://mirbsd.de/ for you.

      --
      My Karma isn't excellent, damn it! (And /. still does not get UTF-8 right in 2012. Wow.)
  13. Re:Oh, Shut Up: You're Dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    After being banished from UC Berkeley, it was ported to the x86 platform, where it fell into the hands of heavier pot-smokers who liked to argue.
    Wait, I'm supposed to be using BSD instead of Linux?
  14. Re:Great! So which version(s) of NetBSD can run th by setagllib · · Score: 1

    ulib: Right on, and thanks for that.

    It isn't enough for grandparent that Linus himself says the new gccs are slower than the oldies? (http://kerneltrap.org/node/view/4126) Okay, you can try it yourself (install, however you do, gcc 2.95.x and 3.3 or 3.4 or whichever you think is the better one, and compile the same code).

    The new GCCs support more targets with more optimization and this is of course helpful, and C++ support is actually good for something now. But this should not have come with such a heavy performance cost. Care to argue this point? I'm more than willing (well not really) but you'd be wasting your time.

    As for thinking I'm a lame troll, fair enough, join the club. Lots of people think that about me. What I say, I say from experience or research. If you don't like it, disprove it, don't just whinge. If you can't disprove it, deal with it. This applies to everyone.

    --
    Sam ty sig.
  15. Re:Great! So which version(s) of NetBSD can run th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    NetBSD used to be fun. It used to be about doing things the right way. It used to be something that you could sink your teeth into when the mundane chores of programming for a living got you down. It was something cool and exciting; a way to spend your spare time on an endeavor you loved that was at the same time wholesome and worthwhile.

    It's not anymore. It's about bylaws and committees and reports and milestones, telling others what to do and doing what you're told. It's about who can rant the longest or shout the loudest or mislead the most people into a bloc in order to legitimize doing what they think is best. Individuals notwithstanding, the project as a whole has lost track of where it's going, and has instead become obsessed with process and mechanics.

    So I'm leaving core. I don't want to feel like I should be "doing something" about a project that has lost interest in having something done for it. I don't have the energy to fight what has clearly become a losing battle; I have a life to live and a job to keep, and I won't achieve any of the goals I personally consider worthwhile if I remain obligated to care for the project.

  16. Re:I Hereby Resign by anynameleft · · Score: 1

    That's why I use NetBSD and not *BSD.

  17. Re:*BSD Sux0rs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WOW... All this for an operating system. I know I am a *bsd user and none of this has happened to me. I am not sure what OS your using or drugs but be sure that it is apparently not doing your mental health any good (if your parent post has any indication of your mental stability/health.)

    Please seek treatment a.s.a.p.

    concerned *bsd user

  18. Re:Great! So which version(s) of NetBSD can run th by setagllib · · Score: 1

    Actually that was originally said about FreeBSD before, and just hacked to say NetBSD instead. If you're going to troll, at least give readers some credit.

    If I had my way Slashdot wouldn't allow anonymous posting to begin with.

    --
    Sam ty sig.
  19. Eh.. actually there was another reason. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    They just did it to prevent clueless penguins from continuously stumbling into it.

    Btw, what about that "tombstone"? Oh, it should be one of those troll things that nobody else (sources, statistics) can see. ;)

  20. YHBT HAND FOAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fact: *BSD is dead

  21. Some actual facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0