Contributed by mk/reverse on from the interrogation dept.
Sometimes he hacks on the OpenBSD operating system. We tricked him into talking about time machines - and the internals of OpenBSD ports.
(Comments are closed)
OpenBSD Journal
Contributed by mk/reverse on from the interrogation dept.
Sometimes he hacks on the OpenBSD operating system. We tricked him into talking about time machines - and the internals of OpenBSD ports.
(Comments are closed)
Copyright © - Daniel Hartmeier. All rights reserved. Articles and comments are copyright their respective authors, submission implies license to publish on this web site. Contents of the archive prior to as well as images and HTML templates were copied from the fabulous original deadly.org with Jose's and Jim's kind permission. This journal runs as CGI with httpd(8) on OpenBSD, the source code is BSD licensed. undeadly \Un*dead"ly\, a. Not subject to death; immortal. [Obs.]
By uriel (82.182.149.44) lost.goblin@gmail.com on
Comments
By Nate (65.95.127.113) on
The better question is when are you going to submit the patches?
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (85.224.154.90) on
And I will send the patches when rc becomes the default OpenBSD shell ;)
Now seriously, to be honest I think the current ports system is over designed and over engineered; something much simpler is enough for me, all I want is to see Perl go, FreeBSD got rid of it a while ago, and it would be sad to see OpenBSD falling behind.
Comments
By Marc Espie (62.212.102.210) espie@openbsd.org on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (66.179.38.239) on
By Chris (144.178.103.79) chriswareham@chriswareham.demon.co.uk on
About the ports system being over-engineered, what's funny is that bsd.port.mk in OpenBSD is roughly 2500 lines long, whereas the corresponding files in both NetBSD and FreeBSD are over 5000 lines these days. And the pkg_tools they have are growing each day, with more tweaks, and knobs, and checks, and new commands. Based on really shaky fundations, because the underlying C tools are downright buggy.
Is it fair to answer a troll with another (partial) troll? The reason the NetBSD mk files are much larger than the OpenBSD ones is mostly due to the excellent cross platform support of pkgsrc. This includes support for OpenBSD, and judging by the reasonable number of OpenBSD related posts on the pkgsrc mailing list there are people who use pkgsrc in preference to OpenBSD's ports. I'd be shocked if there weren't some warts in the pkgsrc code, but your assertion that it's "based on shaky foundations" doesn't fit with my experience, which is that the tools are becoming increasingly sophisticated as new features are added - not because of the addition of dubious workarounds.
Chris
Comments
By Marc Espie (62.212.102.210) espie@openbsd.org on
There is some useful stuff in NetBSD, but there is also a lot of cruft we did streamline in OpenBSD.
One of my regular activities involves monitoring NetBSD and FreeBSD to see what I should grab from their infrastructure.
As for people using pkgsrc on OpenBSD, I'm pretty certain those are the people with cross-platforms needs who don't want to have differing behavior when they change systems.
To give you instances of stuff we removed: NetBSD always defines
pre-*/do-*/post-* targets, whereas we only use these if they exist.
This shaves about 10 targets from each Makefile.
I've also finished sorting through variables and targets, so that all targets now appear after all variables have been defined.
There's also the very useful trick of storing shell script fragments in variables for specializing stuff that's becoming pervasive in OpenBSD.
We have removed stuff. I can see it still in NetBSD. In all cases, it was stuff we could do without (and that we no longer use).
Comments
By Chris (144.178.103.79) chriswareham@chriswareham.demon.co.uk on
Hi Marc. I use pkgsrc on NetBSD and Solaris, so your comment about people using pkgsrc across various platforms to keep the behaviour the same rings true. It's good to see from your other comments that there's cross-pollination of code between the various BSD package and ports frameworks. I also noticed your recent post to the NetBSD pkgsrc list, which will hopefully lead to further cross-pollination of ideas and code.
Chris
By uriel (82.182.149.44) on
What I will say is that if you like Perl, you probably don't understand Unix. Specially if you think that is shell scripts are "not structured". Structuring shell scripts in small programs that do one thing well and work well together is one of the most fundamental Unix principles.
I recommend that you read: The Unix Programming Environment by Brian Kernighan and Rob Pike and The AWK Programming Language by Aho, Kernighan, and Weinberger,
Perl and Perl programmers that didn't understand the Unix philosophy were one of the main causes of the death of Unix.
Comments
By Marc Espie (62.212.102.210) espie@openbsd.org on
undeadly.
Your messages are so ludicrous they make me laugh.
Tell me to learn Unix and shell programming ? hehehe. BWAHAHAHA.
By Michael Knudsen (217.157.199.114) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (69.197.92.181) on
Comments
By Michael Knudsen (217.157.199.114) on
It hasn't made it easier for the developers who now have to maintain two versions of perl along with extra complexity to handle it.
Regarding users then I've only heard complaints about having issues with different versions being installed. While this may be issues that stem from uneducated users, having no choice would prevent this. Also, now users have to keep track of which version of perl they've installed.
This is why I say their move to remove perl from base hasn't made their lives easier.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (69.197.92.181) on
Comments
By tmclaugh (24.60.174.16) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (69.197.92.181) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (69.243.46.8) on
I'd rather the devs work on something useful instead of reinventing the perl applications already on the system.
By tmclaugh (192.216.27.32) on http://www.mono-project.com/Mono:FreeBSD
Having two installed versions of Perl also tends to be a major reason for user fuckups.
By henning (80.86.183.227) on
the opposite is true, choice is bad.
By Marc Espie (163.5.254.20) espie@openbsd.org on
Your reply implies that a maintainer caring for two versions of the same port will spend twice the time maintaining the two versions.
This is usually not true. It most often means the maintainer will split the same amount of time between the two ports. This is critical for testing, and also for bug-reports. Especially stuff that is hard to reproduce because it depends on versions used.
There's also some combinatorial complexity involved. If there are several programs involved, then each version choice *multiplies* the number of possible configurations, and the number of factors that may trigger bugs.
There's a large number of system integration bugs where diagnosing the exact problem is the hardest issue. Once you've found that this issue occurs in package foo, because you installed bar, and because there's a tiny little issue in frob that only shows up if you install version 2 of frob.
Some of these issues do not get fixed, but filed instead as `not a bug' because they can't get reproduced.
All other things being equal (number of people working on a project and time they can spend on that project), more choices means less quality.
By Anonymous Coward (82.155.157.74) on
Comments
By m0rf (68.104.57.241) on
still hanging on for openbsd to become plan9 i guess.
By Anonymous Coward (67.34.129.203) on
By henning (80.86.183.129) on
all I want is to see Perl go, FreeBSD got rid of it a while ago, and it would be sad to see OpenBSD falling behind.
falling behind? I call keeping perl staying ahead.
By Gary (221.126.242.205) on
who cares what you want anyway??
By Brad (216.138.195.228) brad at comstyle dot com on
Comments
By xhrl/thomasw (24.80.39.250) on
By Anonymous Coward (131.202.10.5) on
Comments
By tedu (64.173.147.27) on
By Marc Espie (62.212.102.210) espie@openbsd.org on
That said, the artistic licence is much less obnoxious as the GPL, from a BSD point of view. It's not quite BSD, in particular, it's a bit too long for its own good.
But if I read it right, it says that you can do whatever you want with the software, as long as you don't attempt to make lots of money from the software itself. You can more or less sell anything you ADD for an outrageous sum, be it support, additional routines, or scripts, and you're not obligated to distribute any kind of source. The only thing this more or less forbids is to distribute extended perl binaries without also providing a basic version, and distributing mutant versions of perl without renaming it.
Pretty free if you ask me...
By Lars Hansson (203.65.245.7) lars@unet.net.ph on
By pdemb (217.98.20.20) on
By lis (193.194.84.198) iulian@create.ro on
By Chris (144.178.103.79) single.white.male@gmail.com on
He enjoys juggling and riding through Paris on rollerblades.
What, at the same time?!?
Comments
By ViPER (212.123.197.34) viper@dmrt.net on http://www.dmrt.net
By Jim (63.225.96.149) on
Then, to my surprise, I read somewhere that pkg_add was the way to go, and wow! was that ever easier! But it is only because of unsung heros quietly working away, making it work and building the packages.
A great interview, giving well deserved recognition.
My thanks to you Sir Espie!