Re: [OT] Re: [Full-Disclosure] Knocking Microsoft

From: Paul Schmehl (pauls_at_utdallas.edu)
Date: 02/29/04

  • Next message: gabriel rosenkoetter: "[Full-Disclosure] Re: Empty emails example" 
    To: full-disclosure@lists.netsys.com
Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 14:07:09 -0600

    --On Saturday, February 28, 2004 8:22 AM -0800 Tim
    <tim-security@sentinelchicken.org> wrote:

    >> Yeah, that's *way* easier than FreeBSD's %make install clean.
    >
    > The ports heirarchy is great for what it is. But it doesn't do a lot of
    > things necessary for keeping high-availability when it comes time to
    > patch your daemons on 20+ systems. Now, I haven't used FreeBSD since
    > 4.X days, so maybe they have fixed some of the brain damage, but in a
    > system that it is possible to install the same port over the top of
    > itself... Ever installed a new version of a port on top of an old one,
    > then tried removing the old one?

    First of all, why would you do this? Secondly, it won't work because the
    port will simply tell you that it's already installed and suggest you
    uninstall the previous version first. If you're going to use ports, you
    should use portupgrade to upgrade to new versions.

    > Doesn't work too well. Ever tried
    > maintaining systems with both ports and packages?

    No, but why would you? Choose one method or the other and stick with it.

    > IIRC, it doesn't work
    > so well either. The time to compile is also a pain (but can be remedied
    > if you compile into a package on a *dedicated* build server).
    >
    I guess that's a matter of perspective. I prefer compiling to using
    packages, because they're tailored to the system. Packages are more
    "generic" by their very nature.

    > Don't get me wrong, FreeBSD's ports system is WAY better than dependency
    > handling on windoze (if you can even call it that), and is perfectly
    > sufficient if you only have a few boxes to maintain.
    >
    And who has a good system for maintaining large numbers of boxes?

    Paul Schmehl (pauls@utdallas.edu)
    Adjunct Information Security Officer
    The University of Texas at Dallas
    AVIEN Founding Member
    http://www.utdallas.edu

    _______________________________________________
    Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
    Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html

  • Next message: gabriel rosenkoetter: "[Full-Disclosure] Re: Empty emails example"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: am I the only one, wrt gcc44 -- it is failing and I cant build octave or much else
      ... I believe ports and packages to be 2 separate items. ... Once a port has been built, you can install it. ... built port as a package, ...
      (freebsd-questions)
    • Re: Which Release to install
      ... > with no ports and use packages to install the rest. ... Does anybody besides me think maybe this ports thing has gotten a bit ... I just installed 5.1-RELEASE and a few packages on ... but make a copy of your kernel config file first. ...
      (comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc)
    • Re: New FreeBSD package system (a.k.a. Daemon Package System (dps))
      ... The system gcc can do cross-compilation, ... Possibly one of the versions in ports does this, ... I need this more than I need 32 bit packages to install. ...
      (freebsd-hackers)
    • Re: [HOW-TO] cvsup for ports -- Re: compact portsnap db
      ... The only problems I've ever seen with installing packages is that at ... And yes there are some ports that don't have packages for licencing etc ... though I can't recall ever having to install one of those. ... >> Preferring cvsup to portsnap is kinda like preferring vim over ...
      (freebsd-questions)
    • Re: [HOW-TO] cvsup for ports -- Re: compact portsnap db
      ... It is better to use all ports or all packages so either do: ... people install php at all. ... And yes there are some ports that don't have packages for licencing ... Preferring cvsup to portsnap is kinda like preferring vim ...
      (freebsd-questions)