Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 13:38:00 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: David Chisnall <theraven@FreeBSD.org> Cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, Stanislav Sedov <stas@FreeBSD.org>, Ivan Voras <ivoras@FreeBSD.org>, Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw@zxy.spb.ru>, svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r233294 - in head: . contrib/com_err crypto/heimdal crypto/heimdal/admin crypto/heimdal/appl crypto/heimdal/appl/afsutil crypto/heimdal/appl/ftp crypto/heimdal/appl/ftp/common crypto/he... Message-ID: <4F7619A8.4020404@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <B876AD09-CBA8-4228-9A9E-DA9D146D7D65@FreeBSD.org> References: <201203220848.q2M8mia8015593@svn.freebsd.org> <20120325105958.GB61230@zxy.spb.ru> <CAF-QHFW06n6u-9dhSfK5iakNdZor1uPY6NgPXPVQUrRRg95%2BOw@mail.gmail.com> <4F73D8A0.3040608@FreeBSD.org> <B876AD09-CBA8-4228-9A9E-DA9D146D7D65@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 3/29/2012 4:16 AM, David Chisnall wrote: > On 29 Mar 2012, at 04:36, Doug Barton wrote: > >> All of the stuff that pkgng relies on (including the tool itself) >> are going to be in the ports collection, where they belong. We >> should have moved pkg_* there years ago, but this change is at >> least a step in the right direction. > > Wait... what? Why should pkgng be in ports (other than now, while > it's under development)? I'd like to see it used for managing some > of the optional parts of the base system and probably eventually > replacing freebsd-update, not have it as another bolt-on that is not > part of the core system. Not to mention the bootstrapping problem if > every user who wants to use binary packages needs to use ports to > build pkgng. The bootstrapping problem has been discussed in detail on -ports@, #bsdports, etc.; and the solutions are well known, and quite simple. A) the installer needs to be modified to install certain packages by default, and B) we need a tiny binary in the base (something like pkg_bootstrap, but hopefully with a better name) to bring the ports/package tools up to date. And optionally, C) a button on whatever post-install configurator we end up with to do the same task. Someone else already gave part of the picture as to why this change needs to be made, but to add a bit more detail ... We currently have (at minimum) a 5 year cycle of introducing new features to the pkg_* tools specifically, and often to the ports generally. No, that's not a typo. That's how long it takes to introduce something to the newest FreeBSD version, and then have that change percolate over time to all of the supported FreeBSD versions. We can't continue to operate like that. If FreeBSD is going to survive as a project it has to be able to innovate. In order to do that we have to take the best parts of the "FreeBSD is a complete system" model and at the same time be willing to be honest with ourselves about where and how that model is holding us back. The whole concept of "If it's important, it must be in the base" is one example. The flip side of that, "If it's not in the base, it's not important" is even more dangerous/destructive. We absolutely have to move to a model where "The Base" is a smaller version of what we're shipping now, and more of the 3rd party stuff is moved out to ports only. I'm not talking about a Linux distro model where everything is a package, but we have to stop thinking that just because something is done in Linux means that we can never consider adopting the best parts of the concepts for FreeBSD. We need to see the ports as part of the "The FreeBSD System." Doug
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4F7619A8.4020404>