Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2016 10:18:09 +0100 From: vermaden <vermaden@interia.pl> To: freebsd-pkgbase@freebsd.org Subject: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8) Message-ID: <othwxdmwazekfmeieijl@jhpn>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi,having base system components handled in pkg(8) style is good idea, but PLEASE keep FreeBSD's base system SEPARATED from PORTS/PACKAGES ... this is one of THE BEST FreeBSD features.IMHO there should be DIFFERENT COMMAND nad SEPARATE SQLITE database for FreeBSD's base sytem packages/components handling.Regards,vermaden From owner-freebsd-pkgbase@freebsd.org Fri Mar 4 00:58:08 2016 Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-pkgbase@freebsd.org> 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 D5828A94D93 for <freebsd-pkgbase@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org>; Fri, 4 Mar 2016 00:58:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wollman@khavrinen.csail.mit.edu) Received: from khavrinen.csail.mit.edu (khavrinen.csail.mit.edu [IPv6:2001:470:8b2d:1e1c:21b:21ff:feb8:d7b0]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "khavrinen.csail.mit.edu", Issuer "Client CA" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A29EC83; Fri, 4 Mar 2016 00:58:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wollman@khavrinen.csail.mit.edu) Received: from khavrinen.csail.mit.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by khavrinen.csail.mit.edu (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id u240w6xI033349 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL CN=khavrinen.csail.mit.edu issuer=Client+20CA); Thu, 3 Mar 2016 19:58:07 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from wollman@khavrinen.csail.mit.edu) Received: (from wollman@localhost) by khavrinen.csail.mit.edu (8.14.9/8.14.9/Submit) id u240w6dK033348; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 19:58:06 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from wollman) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <22232.56734.691784.696540@khavrinen.csail.mit.edu> Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 19:58:06 -0500 From: Garrett Wollman <wollman@csail.mit.edu> To: Glen Barber <gjb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-pkgbase@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8) In-Reply-To: <20160302235429.GD75641@FreeBSD.org> References: <20160302235429.GD75641@FreeBSD.org> X-Mailer: VM 8.2.0b under 24.5.1 (amd64-portbld-freebsd9.3) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (khavrinen.csail.mit.edu [127.0.0.1]); Thu, 03 Mar 2016 19:58:07 -0500 (EST) X-BeenThere: freebsd-pkgbase@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Packaging the FreeBSD base system." <freebsd-pkgbase.freebsd.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-pkgbase>, <mailto:freebsd-pkgbase-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-pkgbase/>; List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-pkgbase@freebsd.org> List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-pkgbase-request@freebsd.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-pkgbase>, <mailto:freebsd-pkgbase-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2016 00:58:08 -0000 <<On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 23:54:29 +0000, Glen Barber <gjb@FreeBSD.org> said: > After checking out the project branch, build the userland and kernel as > normal with the 'buildworld' and 'buildkernel' targets. Afterward, > packages can be created with the 'packages' target. > # cd /usr/src > # make [make flags] buildworld > # make [make flags] buildkernel > # make packages Since I don't have any 11-current machines yet, I tried cross-building this on my 10.2 build server, and it seems to work just fine, although pkg(8) whines copiously about "Major OS version upgrade detected. Running "pkg-static install -f pkg" recommended". I note also that "make packages" doesn't work with -jN, but "make release" never worked in parallel either, and I suspect they break in the same place for the same underlying reason. I did this build as myself with -DNO_ROOT and everything went fine; a spot check of the packages shows the correct file ownership. > At present, the base system consists of 755 packages with the default > build (empty src.conf(5) and make.conf(5)) for amd64. The number of > packages depends on several factors, but for most cases a runtime binary > is split into several components. In particular, most shared libraries > are individually packaged, in addition to debugging symbols, profiling > libraries, and 32-bit packaged separately. I was prepared to freak out at this, but with half the packages consisting of debugging symbols for binaries that ship stripped in 10.x anyway (so most users would never need nor install those packages), the number isn't so unreasonable. I get 531 non-"-debug-" packages here, which is still more than I'd like but tolerable given how many of them will never be installed. (Could some of those library packages be consolidated? I'm not convinced that it makes much sense to have all the different -lib32-* variants given the normal use case is runtime-only. And I don't see the profit in having separate libusb, libusbhid, libutil, libvmmapi, libwrap, libxo, liby, libypclnt, libz, etc. packages, either.) Also, for the "FreeBSD-kernel" package, why is the kernel configuration name downcased, and why is the opposite of "-debug-" "-release-" as opposed to "" like all the other packages. Maybe all of the CDDL-licensed stuff should be in a (meta)package of its own? -GAWollman
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?othwxdmwazekfmeieijl>