Pfsense-tools missing from repository
-
Has the location changed by any chance?
[dev@dev ~/pfsense]$ git clone git://github.com/pfsense/pfsense-tools.git tools Initialized empty Git repository in /home/dev/pfsense/tools/.git/ fatal: remote error: Repository not found. [dev@dev ~/pfsense]$
-
Your not alone with this error. It just disappeared… Perhaps a pfSense team member can add some input here....
-
https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,72941.0.html
There used to be a thread here about how to build 2.2, but it's been removed too.
Policy change?
-
This is concerning, as I've just lobbied for a pfSense solution for a customer. I'd hate to have to start over.
-
This is concerning, as I've just lobbied for a pfSense solution for a customer. I'd hate to have to start over.
That's no reason to not use pfSense! I'm pretty sure they just want to control posting of un-authorized and premature images of development versions.
Only people I see it affecting are ones eager to be cut by immature bleeding edge, and truly paranoid types who want to build their own images.
-
Well, this happened at the same time that the xml-rpc server for custom packages disappeared. Not being able to build my own packages is a showstopper… I need rinetd installed and manageable for this application.
Sorry for the threadjack, I guess. :)
-
Un-authorized? WTH? Seriously hope this is not the direction the project is taking. So yeah, this would be really concerning.
-
This is concerning, as I've just lobbied for a pfSense solution for a customer. I'd hate to have to start over.
That's no reason to not use pfSense! I'm pretty sure they just want to control posting of un-authorized and premature images of development versions.
Only people I see it affecting are ones eager to be cut by immature bleeding edge, and truly paranoid types who want to build their own images.
Controlling the posting of binary images of development versions is itself a questionable act in an open source project. Somewhat more alarming, there appears to be active censorship occurring here by the site admins as demonstrated by an attempt to follow the link posted above.
More practically speaking, I can't even build the current release tree without these tools. Almost everything I run, including my OpenWrt, is a custom build (for reasons that aren't really germane to this thread). This seems like a very large hammer to crack a very small nut if its aim is to prevent posting of binary images as you surmise.
Would the admins care to comment to set the record straight?
-
More practically speaking, I can't even build the current release tree without these tools.
This would also hampers bug fixing badly, recall multiple recent serious issues with apinger, prominently.
-
From Jeremy Porter on the dev mailing list, in response to an email query about the missing pfsense-tools repository:
We are in the middle of migrating repositories and services to new hosts and datacenters, to support our work on pfSense 2.2.
I really don't think they are going to make pfsene-tools closed source! You guys have been reading too many posts in the "NSA" thread :)
And they do have to protect the pfSense brand - even I, with absolutely no financial interest in ESF, do not want images built and publicly published with full pfSense logos etc that have real problems. New users will end up finding them accidentally in searches and will install them thinking they are good-to-go. Then they will psot on the forum and… As I understand it, FreeBSD10/pfSense2.2 in its current state is really not useable by anyone other then real dev-nerds, for development purposes only. In that case, it really is best that there not be public images available yet. People who really want to join in at this stage of development can build it all themselves or contact ESF and really make an offer to contribute their time/skills to work together with the other devs on driver issues, patches and...But it would have been nice if ESF had posted here first, letting everyone know the repository would be off-line for x time, rather than letting a thread like this develop.
I was also looking at apinger and the patches to it in pfsense-tools just to see if I could spot what might be causing the varied latency and packet loss figures that happen sometimes. -
Would the admins care to comment to set the record straight?
+1
Then, don't delete the thread.
-
And they do have to protect the pfSense brand - even I, with absolutely no financial interest in ESF, do not want images built and publicly published with full pfSense logos etc that have real problems. New users will end up finding them accidentally in searches and will install them thinking they are good-to-go.
You know, when someone has such concerns for whatever reason (I personally absolutely hate such politics, from the days of Debian vs. Firefox idiocy), you provide a –without-branding or whatever similar switch with the build tools. I personally see zero need for handholding idiots. You think publishing canary/nightly builds for things like Chrome or Firefox damages their trademark? Gah, nonsense...
But it would have been nice if ESF had posted here first, letting everyone know the repository would be off-line for x time, rather than letting a thread like this develop.
I was also looking at apinger and the patches to it in pfsense-tools just to see if I could spot what might be causing the varied latency and packet loss figures that happen sometimes.I have - about a year ago - requested branching off the -dev version of pfsense-tools. The way it's done causes regressions. As is it now, it seriously hampers debugging, prevents people with legit need of building their customized 2.1.x images from doing so; and when you pull the repo altogether, you manage to upset the community as a "bonus".
But it would have been nice if ESF had posted here first, letting everyone know the repository would be off-line for x time, rather than letting a thread like this develop.
It started with the contributor license red tape. Then you go and pull the -tools repo and start wiping threads when some enthusiast guy provides his own bleeding edge images. Why, just why? Makes me wonder - what's next? All this has been badly handled, to put it mildly.
-
I really don't think they are going to make pfsene-tools closed source!
They can't turn pfSense into a closed source project, simply because of the inherited BSD license.
And they do have to protect the pfSense brand - even I, with absolutely no financial interest in ESF, do not want images built and publicly published with full pfSense logos etc that have real problems. New users will end up finding them accidentally in searches and will install them thinking they are good-to-go.
You know, when someone has such concerns for whatever reason (I personally absolutely hate such politics, from the days of Debian vs. Firefox idiocy), you provide a –without-branding or whatever similar switch with the build tools. I personally see zero need for handholding idiots. You think publishing canary/nightly builds for things like Chrome or Firefox damages their trademark? Gah, nonsense...
this exactly
-
Nothing for two days? Ridiculous. Wake up, guys, seriously.
-
Hi,
Somebody has the /home/pfsense 2.1.1 backup ?. gzip…
I porting pfsense to the new pcengines apu motherboard and need customize the kernel.Thanks.
-
I just offered volunteer ops help on the dev mailing list. This is amateurish at best.
EDIT: Some helpful responses from their ops team on the dev list. They're working on it.
-
I am trying to debug something and I cannot get the pfPorts source I need… Looking for a fork
-
This looks to be up-to-date with what was last on GitHub a few days ago:
https://github.com/Podilarius/pfsense-tools -
This looks to be up-to-date with what was last on GitHub a few days ago:
https://github.com/Podilarius/pfsense-toolsThanks already found that one! Got the source I needed.
-
Thank you very much!.