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."
- What does the PR count count?
- Is the pkgsrc tree the source tree for the entire distribution?
- Two-space tabs or three?
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.
as a Cobalt Qube2 user let me say....WHOOT!
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
If I want to use their pre-built packages, do I have to be running the latest CVS, or can 1.6 handle it?
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."
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.
..say what you want, there are reasons for using it that are definitely more compelling. :)a emonette_bg1024_tr.jpg
http://www.keltia.net/photos/Bellamy/Daemonette/d
>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.
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
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:
..and last but not least, we have the cutest mascot as well - undisputedly. ;)
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."
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
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.
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.
That's why I use NetBSD and not *BSD.
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.