11 ms·

The FreeBSD Foundation Is Soliciting Project Proposals

49 points by profquail 14y ago

frankzinger 14y ago
It should be mentioned that this article is from 2007.
- ari_elle 14y ago
  It is not! "March 27th, 2013, 16:10" The "Join Date" of the user is 2007
  - frankzinger 14y ago
    Doh. Sorry, my mistake.
bborud 14y ago
Make managing FreeBSD not suck?
- profquail 14y ago
  What do you feel is wrong with it now? It's much easier to implement features/fixes/improvements when you have an idea of what people want, and why they want it; there's not much you can do with "it sucks".
- pifflesnort 14y ago
  Perhaps you could constructively expand on this? For the most part, I find managing FreeBSD to be painless, with one glaring exception I'll get to in a minute. I really love that the base system and the 3rd party packages are iterated separately -- I can have a stable base OS, while also running modern software. The problem is the ports system. Building your own software is a nice option to have, but it's usually just a waste of everyone's time, and it tends to fail in annoying, new, and magical ways. Fortunately, we have https://wiki.freebsd.org/pkgng https://wiki.freebsd.org/pkgng coming down the pipeline, which solves the problem (finally). On top of the hassle of using ports, writing ports is a huge hassle of battling archaic crap. Rather than using destroot, like every other package manager from the past 15 years, FreeBSD requires the package maintainer to manually list out each file that will be installed on the target system, and will fail to properly clean up ports if those file lists are incorrect. That said, it's not all that much worse than what's necessary to produce a debian/ubuntu package -- it just could be better.
  - 65a 14y ago
    I've been running pkgng on CURRENT for a bit...It's really quite painless, even if you prefer compiling everything. The new pkg tool does some stuff easily that is painful even in debian (which in my opinion has always done packages right...I was burned by rpms in the 90s/00s many times). For instance I just discovered 'pkg which' which will tell you which package installed any file. I believe this is possible on debian, but not a two word command (I could be wrong). One benefit as well is that it seems to do less random io/spinlocking when doing stuff with the package database than the old tools, which means large install runs (compiled or not) go much faster. It also builds in vulnerability auditing, which is also great. Previously this required a separate port.
    - mapleoin 14y ago
      Just in case you (or anyone else) is wondering. You can find out which rpm installed a file with rpm -qf <file>. And you can see all the files in an installed rpm with rpm -ql <pkg>. I'm also curious about the dpkg equivalent.
      - sigil 14y ago
        > I'm also curious about the dpkg equivalent. dpkg -S /path/to/file
      - e12e 14y ago
        dpkg -L <package> lists files in a package. edit: dpkg -l | --list lists packages, -L|--listfiles lists files in packages (which is why it isn't just dpkg -l)
    - crest 14y ago
      Even the old pkg_info -W offered this.
    - e12e 14y ago
      As already mentioned "dpkg -S file" will show which package installed which file. If you install apt-file, you can also search for which package, installed or not, contains a file: $ apt-file search /etc/apache2/ports.conf apache2.2-common: /etc/apache2/ports.conf $ aptitude search apache2.2-common p apache2.2-common - Apache HTTP Server common files $ dpkg -S /etc/apache2/ports.conf dpkg-query: no path found matching pattern /etc/apache2/ports.conf
jedberg 14y ago
Ok, I want to fund a project, not propose it. How do I do that? If someone makes a project that is basically "work with Amazon and FreeBSD to make FreeBSD a first class citizen on EC2" I would totally put money into that, and moreso, would use my deep contacts at Amazon to help make the project a reality. From what I understand, the technical part of the project is basically making the kernel and the hypervisor play nice.
- colechristensen 14y ago
  I have a strong feeling that if you simply took the initiative and asked the foundation, you would get what you want. Of course, per-project funding on a wide scale gets into a sticky situation where the foundation no longer can make its own choices and do the right things instead of the popular things.
  - pifflesnort 14y ago
    Agreed. Talking to cpercival would also be a good start. See his page on the subject: http://www.daemonology.net/freebsd-on-ec2/ http://www.daemonology.net/freebsd-on-ec2/ Also: https://wiki.freebsd.org/FreeBSD/Xen https://wiki.freebsd.org/FreeBSD/Xen I think that funding whatever is required here would be fantastic. The move to VPSs has forced me to also move to Ubuntu for what I host 'in the cloud', and I'd love to move back to FreeBSD.
  - jedberg 14y ago
    > Of course, per-project funding on a wide scale gets into a sticky situation where the foundation no longer can make its own choices and do the right things instead of the popular things. That's why I haven't asked the foundation directly. :) When I made my annual donation to them this year I expressed my desire to see FreeBSD on EC2, but I don't want to start dictating what they should be doing.
    - pifflesnort 14y ago
      There's honestly no harm in discussing it. FreeBSD/Xen is already of interest to base committers, there's existing work done. If those committers are interested in furthering it via funding -- something you can only establish by talking to the foundation et al -- then everyone wins! :)

49 points by profquail 14y ago

frankzinger 14y ago

It should be mentioned that this article is from 2007.

ari_elle 14y ago
It is not! "March 27th, 2013, 16:10" The "Join Date" of the user is 2007
- frankzinger 14y ago
  Doh. Sorry, my mistake.

bborud 14y ago

Make managing FreeBSD not suck?

profquail 14y ago
What do you feel is wrong with it now? It's much easier to implement features/fixes/improvements when you have an idea of what people want, and why they want it; there's not much you can do with "it sucks".
pifflesnort 14y ago
Perhaps you could constructively expand on this? For the most part, I find managing FreeBSD to be painless, with one glaring exception I'll get to in a minute. I really love that the base system and the 3rd party packages are iterated separately -- I can have a stable base OS, while also running modern software. The problem is the ports system. Building your own software is a nice option to have, but it's usually just a waste of everyone's time, and it tends to fail in annoying, new, and magical ways. Fortunately, we have https://wiki.freebsd.org/pkgng https://wiki.freebsd.org/pkgng coming down the pipeline, which solves the problem (finally). On top of the hassle of using ports, writing ports is a huge hassle of battling archaic crap. Rather than using destroot, like every other package manager from the past 15 years, FreeBSD requires the package maintainer to manually list out each file that will be installed on the target system, and will fail to properly clean up ports if those file lists are incorrect. That said, it's not all that much worse than what's necessary to produce a debian/ubuntu package -- it just could be better.
- 65a 14y ago
  I've been running pkgng on CURRENT for a bit...It's really quite painless, even if you prefer compiling everything. The new pkg tool does some stuff easily that is painful even in debian (which in my opinion has always done packages right...I was burned by rpms in the 90s/00s many times). For instance I just discovered 'pkg which' which will tell you which package installed any file. I believe this is possible on debian, but not a two word command (I could be wrong). One benefit as well is that it seems to do less random io/spinlocking when doing stuff with the package database than the old tools, which means large install runs (compiled or not) go much faster. It also builds in vulnerability auditing, which is also great. Previously this required a separate port.
  - mapleoin 14y ago
    Just in case you (or anyone else) is wondering. You can find out which rpm installed a file with rpm -qf <file>. And you can see all the files in an installed rpm with rpm -ql <pkg>. I'm also curious about the dpkg equivalent.
    - sigil 14y ago
      > I'm also curious about the dpkg equivalent. dpkg -S /path/to/file
    - e12e 14y ago
      dpkg -L <package> lists files in a package. edit: dpkg -l | --list lists packages, -L|--listfiles lists files in packages (which is why it isn't just dpkg -l)
  - crest 14y ago
    Even the old pkg_info -W offered this.
  - e12e 14y ago
    As already mentioned "dpkg -S file" will show which package installed which file. If you install apt-file, you can also search for which package, installed or not, contains a file: $ apt-file search /etc/apache2/ports.conf apache2.2-common: /etc/apache2/ports.conf $ aptitude search apache2.2-common p apache2.2-common - Apache HTTP Server common files $ dpkg -S /etc/apache2/ports.conf dpkg-query: no path found matching pattern /etc/apache2/ports.conf

jedberg 14y ago

Ok, I want to fund a project, not propose it. How do I do that? If someone makes a project that is basically "work with Amazon and FreeBSD to make FreeBSD a first class citizen on EC2" I would totally put money into that, and moreso, would use my deep contacts at Amazon to help make the project a reality. From what I understand, the technical part of the project is basically making the kernel and the hypervisor play nice.

colechristensen 14y ago
I have a strong feeling that if you simply took the initiative and asked the foundation, you would get what you want. Of course, per-project funding on a wide scale gets into a sticky situation where the foundation no longer can make its own choices and do the right things instead of the popular things.
- pifflesnort 14y ago
  Agreed. Talking to cpercival would also be a good start. See his page on the subject: http://www.daemonology.net/freebsd-on-ec2/ http://www.daemonology.net/freebsd-on-ec2/ Also: https://wiki.freebsd.org/FreeBSD/Xen https://wiki.freebsd.org/FreeBSD/Xen I think that funding whatever is required here would be fantastic. The move to VPSs has forced me to also move to Ubuntu for what I host 'in the cloud', and I'd love to move back to FreeBSD.
- jedberg 14y ago
  > Of course, per-project funding on a wide scale gets into a sticky situation where the foundation no longer can make its own choices and do the right things instead of the popular things. That's why I haven't asked the foundation directly. :) When I made my annual donation to them this year I expressed my desire to see FreeBSD on EC2, but I don't want to start dictating what they should be doing.
  - pifflesnort 14y ago
    There's honestly no harm in discussing it. FreeBSD/Xen is already of interest to base committers, there's existing work done. If those committers are interested in furthering it via funding -- something you can only establish by talking to the foundation et al -- then everyone wins! :)