Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 20:41:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@orthanc.ca> To: Glen Barber <gjb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: why 100 packages are evil Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.00.1604222038301.15755@minnie.bitsea.ca> In-Reply-To: <20160423032138.GB1804@FreeBSD.org> References: <76093.1461096570@critter.freebsd.dk> <5716AD65.8070007@shrew.net> <BF66EA01-E073-45F0-8F9E-22D57E8871B0@bsdimp.com> <5716FA70.4080604@freebsd.org> <57170E5D.1090701@freebsd.org> <5524F499-5042-407E-9180-43D15A53F3F0@FreeBSD.org> <7621BDAB-A409-456A-A3F1-A6CD9B371DBC@rdsor.ro> <20160420094806.GJ6614@zxy.spb.ru> <7c84f388-21dc-419f-70ce-c5369e294dab@freebsd.org> <alpine.OSX.2.00.1604222009300.15755@minnie.bitsea.ca> <20160423032138.GB1804@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Same as it is now for releases. Packages will be available for SAs/ENs. > There is no intention to change this model. I get that. But the dependency base will be huge. Right now I can count on a very limited set of dependencies for anything I ship as a 3rd party package. Doing that for n>100 packages gets to be troubling. I know it can be done, but for a small company like the one I work for, it quickly becomes impractical.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.OSX.2.00.1604222038301.15755>