From owner-freebsd-pkgbase@freebsd.org Tue Apr 19 07:32:33 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 5379DB133DB; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 07:32:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from slw@zxy.spb.ru) Received: from zxy.spb.ru (zxy.spb.ru [195.70.199.98]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15118174F; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 07:32:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from slw@zxy.spb.ru) Received: from slw by zxy.spb.ru with local (Exim 4.86 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1asQ9B-000NYS-UY; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 10:32:33 +0300 Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 10:32:33 +0300 From: Slawa Olhovchenkov To: Alfred Perlstein Cc: Lyndon Nerenberg , freebsd-pkgbase@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8) Message-ID: <20160419073233.GD4841@zxy.spb.ru> References: <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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5715A338.5060009@freebsd.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: slw@zxy.spb.ru X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zxy.spb.ru); SAEximRunCond expanded to false 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 07:32:33 -0000 On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 08:17:12PM -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > Maybe what the "too many packages" folks need to do is write some code > to hide that it's so many packages. > > :) > > I think the rule of two feet should be applied here. > > What we have is people that have worked quite hard to bring us something > that we can easily work with, and on the other hand some folks that want > something they consider even better. Personally I can't see how having > the system less granular is better, since having it MORE granular is > actually harder work. > > 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. Because this is imposible (or very hard) to implement. After last update (realy update) I have partyaly updated system -- some packages updated, some -- not (I am expect all packages must be updated). Imposible to combine 800 packages to less meta-package and distinct improper partial update from proper. And how I am can paste this list of packages?