From owner-freebsd-pkgbase@freebsd.org Tue Apr 19 03:24:24 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-pkgbase@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 123B6B13CEF; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 03:24:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lyndon@orthanc.ca) Received: from orthanc.ca (orthanc.ca [IPv6:2607:f2f8:abf8::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "orthanc.ca", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X1" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF3FE11C3; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 03:24:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lyndon@orthanc.ca) Received: from minnie.bitsea.ca ([24.114.43.34]) (authenticated bits=0) by orthanc.ca (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id u3J3OMlC054412 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 18 Apr 2016 20:24:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lyndon@orthanc.ca) Subject: Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8) To: Alfred Perlstein , freebsd-pkgbase@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org References: <20160302235429.GD75641@FreeBSD.org> <57152CE5.5050500@FreeBSD.org> <9D4B9C8B-41D7-42BC-B436-D23EFFF60261@ixsystems.com> <20160418191425.GW1554@FreeBSD.org> <571533B8.6090109@freebsd.org> <20160418194010.GX1554@FreeBSD.org> <57153E80.4080800@FreeBSD.org> <571551AB.4070203@freebsd.org> <5715772A.3070306@freebsd.org> <571588BB.2070803@orthanc.ca> <201604190201.u3J216NQ054020@orthanc.ca> <5715968B.303@orthanc.ca> <5715A338.5060009@freebsd.org> From: Lyndon Nerenberg Message-ID: <5715A4E1.5090606@orthanc.ca> Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 20:24:17 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5715A338.5060009@freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-pkgbase@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Packaging the FreeBSD base system." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 03:24:24 -0000 On 2016-04-18 8:17 PM, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > Can someone on the "too many packages" campaign here explain to me how > having too fine a granularity stops you from making macro packages > containing packages? > > Because honestly I can't see how having granularity hurts at all when if > someone wanted to make it less granular all they would have to do is > make some meta-packages. It's the *I have to put it back together* part that's annoying. I didn't break something that has worked, forever. It shouldn't be incumbent on me to un-break someone else's work. Now if the system ships with each-file-in-a-package, fine. Just give me gross subsets that make my life as a sysadmin liveable. E.g., base POSIX functionality should be a 'group' package. And I would hope, the default installation package. I would go for the argument that, e.g., the dev stuff (cc, yacc, lex) could be split off, but at least include the headers that match what's in /lib and /usr/lib, in a compiler agnostic set. Since the point of packages is to allow for selections of optional software. --lyndon