From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 13 08:16:28 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: current@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1A27106564A; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 08:16:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from michael@ranner.eu) Received: from mail.azedo.at (mail.azedo.at [91.118.6.139]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0875A8FC0C; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 08:16:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.azedo.at (dovecot.azedo.at [172.20.10.3]) by mail.azedo.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0CC8A6C156; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 10:16:20 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at azedo.at Received: from mail.azedo.at ([172.20.10.3]) by mail.azedo.at (mail.azedo.at [172.20.10.3]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Fj-xznh6Jk8U; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 10:16:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from panthera.fritz.box (mom.azedo.at [85.124.38.86]) by mail.azedo.at (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 87380A6C138; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 10:16:02 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4FFFD944.1030005@ranner.eu> Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 10:16:04 +0200 From: Michael Ranner User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Doug Barton References: <20120712100110.GA34228@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <4FFF1C09.2020408@FreeBSD.org> <20120712220207.GD49382@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <4FFF5983.3010708@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4FFF5983.3010708@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, Baptiste Daroussin , current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [HEADSUP & CFT] pkg 1.0rc1 and schedule X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 08:16:28 -0000 Am 13.07.12 01:10, schrieb Doug Barton: > On 07/12/2012 03:02 PM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 11:48:41AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: >>> I do not mean this e-mail to be in any way critical. I was told after >>> the new OPTIONS framework discussion that I should have asked questions >>> before the change, so I'm asking these questions now; in a genuine >>> attempt to get information. >>> >>> On 07/12/2012 03:01 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >>> >>> In the time that you have been working on this project I have asked >>> numerous times for you(pl.) to answer the following questions: >>> >>> 1. What are the goals for pkg? >> The why part of this mail should reply this question, no? > Well clearly not, because if it did I wouldn't keep asking the same > questions over and over again. :) > >> Anyway the goal is to have a decent package manager, providing modern features: >> repositories, decent dependency tracking, decent reverse dependency tracking, >> managing upgrade correctly (I'll explain this more later), provide a decent >> library for third party tools (desktop integration via PackageKit for example) > I don't know what "decent" means. I don't know what "modern features" > means (beyond the buzzwords that you've included). > >> Providing easy package management for enterprise > Having set up package management systems for enterprises before, *this* > is actually a big-picture goal that I have a lot of sympathy for. But > again, what's missing is *details* about here is what large enterprises > need to make things work for them, here's why the existing tools don't > meet those needs, and here is how pkg does meet them. > >> (who never got problems >> managing packages on a large set of freebsd servers, and how complicated it is >> on FreeBSD to have automated reliable puppet,salt,chef,cfengine like tools) >> One of the proof of this problem is how fast people integrated pkgng in those >> tools. > This gets to the heart of my biggest fear regarding this whole project. > It's new, it's shiny, and it looks like forward progress is being made. > Thus, it's attracted a lot of attention, input, time, etc. Heck, it may > even BE forward progress, but I don't know how to measure that because I > don't know what the goals of the project are. Thus, my fear is that > without *details* about what the project is, and what it's trying to > accomplish, we're going to put an exponentially larger volume of work > into the transition and end up no closer to the goal of having a mature > package management system. > > And just to be clear, I am *not* saying that "pkg sucks" or that it's > bad, or wrong, or anything else. I'm saying that I don't know how to > evaluate it, because you haven't given us a criteria by which to measure > it. > > So what's the problem? We *desperately* need a better system for ports > and packages. We only have so many person-hours we can devote to making > that happen. If we spend all of them on pkg, and it ends up not helping > us enough, we've burnt out our volunteers for no good reason. I am using pkg_* tools since '94 and I am using portmaster for ports/pkg maintainance for years: pkg_* tools are a pain in the ass in the view of an administrator. I use it only and partly on fresh installs and doing further security auditing with portaudit and upgrading with portmaster - most time upgrading from source. But only, because its simply not possible the same way with the pkg_* tools. Because I manage dozens of installation across Europe, buildind and updating from ports will be more and more time consuming. portmaster is really a great tool to take control of this lack of features in pkg_* tools , but I am running out of time more and more. I was also a bit concerned and reserved to pkgng. But I am also in contact with some local FreeBSD ports committers and one of them (decke) told me some stories about pkgng and poudriere. I saw the talk from Beat Gätzi (beat) at EU BSD Day 2012 about pkgng and was I see was really nice and made me courious. So I tried to setup a small build environment with poudriere and pkgng to evaluate an substitution for my traditional pkg/port security upgrading with portmaster. Finally I think, I can complete replace portmaster with pkgng, poudriere and an self build and maintained pkg repository. This will save a huge amount of time in future and allow to roll out security updates for packages really fast and easy. So pkgng is not designed as a replacement for portmaster, but now it allows me to work without it on most of my installations. I know almost any of the "Linux Enterprise" package management features, pkg_* tools a far away from this kind of functionality, even with the support of the great portmaster tool. Bug pkgng improves much more. Its a very complex problematic. Yes documentation is not so good as it could be. But I saw the talks from beat in live, saw the screencasts from bapt on Youtube and finally I tried it on my own. It was necessary to try it out and see it, feel it, smell and taste it. I think its good work from admin and enterprise point of view. Doug has written portmaster and integrated package handeling, which I only use rarely on my old desktop. Why was this handling integrated in portmaster and not in pkg_* tools? I know its something unkown and new and I had also my problems with the idea of pkgng for the first time (why reinventing the wheel...) - but I tried it out and it works really really well. My opinion after 18 years of FreeBSD administration. Regards, Michael -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen Ing. Michael Ranner GSM: +43 676 4155044 Mail: michael@ranner.eu WWW: http://www.azedo.at/