*BSD News Article 91370


Return to BSD News archive

Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!solace!nntp.se.dataphone.net!nntp.uio.no!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.bc.net!unixg.ubc.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!news
From: Marc Slemko <marcs@znep.com>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: The end of 2.1?
Date: 19 Mar 1997 05:25:03 GMT
Organization: University of Alberta
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <5gntbf$dgq@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>
References: <332F180D.16E3@iphase.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: gpu5.srv.ualberta.ca
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 (NOV)
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:37285

In <332F180D.16E3@iphase.com> Dave Littell <dlittell@iphase.com> writes:



>Following is a general list of things that are/have been
>worrisome in my 2.1.5/6/7-based development efforts:


>- The latest and greatest NFS security problem: will this in
>  itself spur another 2.1 release?  (This is sort of a rhetorical
>  question, keep reading.)

You should track the sources with cvsup or ctm.  There is no need
to wait for releases to get fixes to the 2.1 branch.  Important
bugfixes and security holes will continue to be fixed in the 2.1
branch for a while; just because there may not be a release
doesn't mean you can't track the sources.

>- Gazing over the list of critical problems doesn't exactly
>  instill a deep sense of peace.  Jeez, a filesystem problem over
>  2 years old (kern/216)?

What, because the problems are in the open instead of hidden away?
This particular problem is one that happens in very specific
and difficult to reproduce situations.  99.9% of the people simply
never see it.  If someone could fix it they would, but if
you can't replicate a problem it is hard to fix.

>- Endless install problems with the ports collection.  Install
>  attempts either do nothing (gnat) or fail to compile due to
>  some ridiculous __FreeBSD_version "#if" (too many to list).
>  Who knows what else lurks outside of my normal usage path?
>  I've been very pleased with the operational quality the ports
>  (once I finally get them installed).  That is, with the ones I
>  haven't completely abandoned.  The point of all this is there
>  needs to be a LOT more quality control on the ports collection.

As has been said many times, the ports are designed for the
current release.  In the past, this has meant -current.  They
_ARE_ tested but not on old releases.  If you are volunteering
to provide patches to make the ports work with 2.1, that's
great.