From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 13 16:04:26 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8085D1065673; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 16:04:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from utisoft@gmail.com) Received: from mail-bk0-f54.google.com (mail-bk0-f54.google.com [209.85.214.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 550028FC15; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 16:04:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bkcje9 with SMTP id je9so3487317bkc.13 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 09:04:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=XB/wA4riI99uFO6aLtShfE/290W+bRfe8PLYlPE52QY=; b=sL5bcaIQCan2+8BdAJ8xJMlqmWXIm3ahVB0s7F8+2/Af3gZBiy35tg7hu8C1sgL8nR FWS5c8AXqU4wBjc9cWdYKVPhQrzEFLSd8JzqEmmpGfKz/+wKm14x81QvCSP1EOP7GdSB ynURGkdirPSepXIjEx0ERb/YFD+j2k0dbrEPMhu3G4t+lRdqKD+QyM0kNU9Gg7Cu56Mp L2yF9kXxN5SravNKn4e7ug3elsH3EbTkvGIE8XMXTPSV3KUJnrWojgNMzMmuNMwgafNv JqtMlhMyeNbwY48WOMdj3F1lK6WwNIG9hhRaNLMM6Xfwes4co0p5ZFqpgxyLkhjc3laU HTmg== Received: by 10.204.151.81 with SMTP id b17mr1312306bkw.95.1342195464396; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 09:04:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: utisoft@gmail.com Received: by 10.204.49.87 with HTTP; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 09:03:53 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5000467D.4000902@shatow.net> References: <20120712100110.GA34228@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <4FFF3EB9.3040701@FreeBSD.org> <201207130826.32942.jhb@freebsd.org> <5000406B.2060201@FreeBSD.org> <5000467D.4000902@shatow.net> From: Chris Rees Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 17:03:53 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: NbQYWdPhR0xK41B2S707KuVmEqU Message-ID: To: Bryan Drewery Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Craig Rodrigues , Baptiste Daroussin , Doug Barton , current@freebsd.org, ports@freebsd.org, freebsd-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 16:04:26 -0000 On 13 July 2012 17:02, Bryan Drewery wrote: > On 7/13/2012 10:36 AM, Doug Barton wrote: >> On 07/13/2012 05:26 AM, John Baldwin wrote: >>> On Thursday, July 12, 2012 5:16:41 pm Doug Barton wrote: >>>> On 07/12/2012 02:11 PM, Craig Rodrigues wrote: >>>>> You might want to view Baptiste's pkgng presentation at BSDCan: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Hxq7AHZ27I >>>> >>>> Sure, the next time I have an hour to spare. >>>> >>>> I don't think what I'm asking for is unreasonable. One could even >>>> conclude that answering those 3 questions should have been a >>>> prerequisite for starting down this road in the first place. >>> >>> One could also assume that other people in the Project aren't morons and do >>> actually put thought into the things they do for starters >> >> I certainly *want* to believe that. But considering the giant mess that >> portmgr + Baptiste made of the changes to the OPTIONS framework, that >> only touches a fraction of the ports, my willingness to have faith in >> "them" to do it right is near zero. > > There's a *major* difference in the testing effort and community > involvement in these 2 projects. OPTIONSng had maybe a handful of > testers over a shorter period of time. > > PKGNG has had 40+ contributors and has been in development since 2010. > It's been presented and discussed at multiple conferences and dev > summits. Many people have been building their own packages with PKGNG > for months now, greatly raising the testing coverage on the ports tree. > >> >> Not to mention that I've been asking for a project plan for pkg since >> long before it even hit the ports tree in beta. What I'm asking for >> should have been done already considering that this change will affect >> *every* port, and *every* user. So either it hasn't actually been done, >> or the PTB are refusing to provide it. > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2012-January/031533.html > > I find bapt's research in that post to be evident that a lot of thought > and time did go into planning this. > >> >> Also, please keep in mind that I was criticized for *not* speaking up >> about the OPTIONS changes, now I'm being criticized *for* speaking up >> prior to pkg going live. In spite of the fact that I'm doing my best to >> (repeatedly) be clear that I'm not against the project, I just want to >> know more about it. >> >>> Also, when other >>> people have taken time to explain an large decision because you are too lazy >>> to invest the time doesn't really help your case). >> >> Um, I'm too lazy? I've read everything that's been written on pkg to >> date. Have you? 90% of it is "how to" type stuff that doesn't address >> what we need. The other 10% is so vague and general as to be useless as >> a project plan. > > Have you watched the BSDCan presentation video yet? It is very > compelling and exciting. > >> >> You're an experienced project manager John. If someone who worked for >> you came to you with a plan this vague ("modern" foo, "decent" bar), for >> a critical system, how would you respond? (And yes, I realize that no >> one around here works for me, that isn't my point at all.) >> >>> In terms of the first feature (binary upgrades), the truth is that if you have >>> more than 5 machines to manage, our current pkg tools completely suck. There >>> is no automated upgrade mechanism. If you want one you have to write your own >>> set of infrastructure to do the right collection of pkg_delete/pkg_adds. >>> Certainly there is no support in the current package tools for doing batch >>> upgrades (i.e. upgrading from one completely package set to another). pkgng >>> adds that feature, and I find it a must for supporting large installations of >>> machines that need automated management. >> >> And as I wrote previously, I've been there and done that, so yes, I'm >> interested in the feature. But I'd like to know more about the plans for >> it so that those of us who *do* have experience in this topic can share >> that, and we can avoid having to reinvent the wheel. Or worse, putting >> out something half-assed that uses up a lot of developer cycles and >> doesn't get the job done. > > So get involved! Come help. Contribute. > And PLEASE get that portmaster patch integrated. Chris