On 19/04/2016 5:29 AM, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
Guys please stop arguing about the number of packages. The high
granularity is VERY useful!
it's going to make us a laughing stock
"look FreeBSD just split into 1.43 million packages" (effectively the
same number.. it's bigger than 10)
Managing large groups of small packages is much easier than just
having large packages.
err, Alfred, what planet do you live on? when they get out of sync it
becomes a nightmare.
If you also had a packaging system that was smart enough to manage a
hierarchy of packages then "maybe"..
All this can be done by meta-packages which depend on larger package
groups.
Currently Metapackage is a way to make 10 packages look like 11
packages. The framework needs to understand to hide the 10 internal
packages if they are part of a metapackage.
Later pkg can be augmented to "remove packages not explicitly
installed" which would remove leaf packages.
Example: you installed "base-debug" which pulls in let's say 50
small packages, later you want all of those removed, you can do
something like: "pkg delete --leafs base-debug" which should delete
"base-debug" and any dangling packages it pulled in not required by
other pkgs.
Huge thanks to the team that implemented this!
I'm sure the work was large and will be useful in the future but we
are not ready to have the system installed like this.
no-one wants to see 750 packages show up when you do an enquiry on a
newly installed system.
I could live with:
base-utils 11.1
- ktrace uninstalled
- tcpdump uninstalled
+ dd 11.1.1 (CVE-123412 fix)
but not
{700 packages )
dd 11.1.1 dd with CVE fix
{29 more packages}
[tcpdump line is not present but you don't notice that]
{10 more packages}
[ktrace line would be here but you don't notice that either]
{15 more packages}
In other words, I have no objection to all the utilities coming in the form of
little packages.
but I have a major objection if that fact is at all obvious to the end user,
and certainly if we need to wade through 750 packages to see what's going on.
thanks.
-Alfred
On 4/18/16 1:07 PM, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
On 18.04.2016 22:40, Glen Barber wrote:
This granularity allows easy removal of things that may not be wanted
(such as *-debug*, *-profile*, etc.) on systems with little
storage. On
one of my testing systems, I removed the tests packages and all debug
and profiling, and the number of base system packages is 383.
IMHO, granularity like "all base debug", "all base profile" is
enough
for this. Really, I hardly could imagine why I will need only 1
debug or
profile package, say, for csh. On resource-constrained systems NanoBSD
is much better anyway (for example, my typical NanoBSD installation is
37MB base system, 12MB /boot and 10 packages), and on developer system
where you need profiled libraries it is Ok to install all of them and
don't think about 100 packages for them.
Idea of "Roles" from old FreeBSD installers looks much better.
Again,
here are some "contrib" software which have one-to-one replacements in
ports, like sendmail, ssh/sshd, ntpd, but split all other
FreeBSD-specific code? Yes, debug. Yes, profile. Yes, static
libraries.
Yes, lib32 on 64 bit system.
It seems that it is ideological ("holy war") discussion more than
technical one...
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
"freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
