Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2025 07:48:04 +0000 From: "Chris" <bsd.lists@h8spam.org> To: "Miroslav Lachman" <000.fbsd@quip.cz>, "David Chisnall" <theraven@freebsd.org> Cc: "vermaden" <vermaden@interia.pl>, "Shawn Webb" <shawn.webb@hardenedbsd.org>, freebsd-pkgbase@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, pete@nomadlogic.org, bapt@freebsd.org, bane@pmf.uns.ac.rs Subject: Re: PKGBASE Removes FreeBSD Base System Feature Message-ID: <cc027f92f58b723db9b8c2a021b296a0@h8spam.org> In-Reply-To: <9a03be4d-4621-445c-980d-e63c7f163e78@quip.cz> References: <9a03be4d-4621-445c-980d-e63c7f163e78@quip.cz> <gblzvammhkzqxmwduyap@vpbk> <na7zou5skn2rcvyoigjgnnlzaomqsx23aj7dq3epq5ds65cu4y@ukgxp5zsj7j7> <fozdqxvxzylwxyvzfrmt@fobq> <a9e07520-eddd-4e55-abab-cf7ecd426c24@quip.cz> <DF25C123-E233-4EEF-86F2-AD536BA2F397@FreeBSD.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
August 4, 2025 3:34 PM, "Miroslav Lachman" <000.fbsd@quip.cz> wrote: > On 01/08/2025 16:22, David Chisnall wrote: > >> On 31 Jul 2025, at 02:57, Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> wrote: >>> I would also like to separate it. Use one command to update (upgrade) >>> 3rd party packages and another to update (upgrade) base packages. It >>> is our workflow for the last 25+ years thus running one command to >>> update both is really unexpected and unwanted. >> >> I disagree here. If you *want* to separate them, then you can: you can >> specify the repository that you want to upgrade explicitly. But if you >> do then you risk things like: >> >> - I’ve upgraded my base system, but not my ports-kmods things, so now >> my GUI doesn’t start. >> - I’ve upgraded ports, but the ports tree is built on a newer point >> release and I need to upgrade to make some symbols exist. >> - I’ve upgraded the base system and now some kmods from ports don’t work. >> >> All of these are things that users have complained about publicly in the >> last year or so. >> >> I have avoided them by always doing `freebsd-update install && pkg >> upgrade` and keeping that in my shell history[1] so I don’t accidentally >> forget to upgrade both together. >> >> Given a choice between a thing that works for users, or something that >> *can* work for users but comes with a bunch of footguns that they need >> to avoid, I’d pick the former. >> >> David >> >> [1] I’ve noticed on fresh installs, the default shell no longer has >> working persistent history, which is a *big* POLA violation, if people >> want to complain about something. > > I see your point, but our workflow is much different. One command to > upgrade base and packages at the same time is like "one to break it all" > to me. > I have seen broken "pkg upgrade" so many times... but it never breaks > base and running ssh so I am still able to fix it somehow.. > Running FreeBSD for more than 25 years on tens of machines (headless > servers) and I never need to do upgrade of base and packages at the same > time. I am not saying nobody need it. Yes it can be useful on upgrading > desktops or other installations with kmods, but I think it still can be > done in 2 separate steps to keep the base untouched if user wants it. > Mainly when there is another step needed - etcupdate. Having base and > packages upgraded and only then fixing conflicts with etcupdate seems > very bad idea to me. The biggest problem I see in all this, is that all the drivers were moved to ports/. That's a HUGE failure. When they existed in $base you had the option to build only the drivers you needed and you built them with $BASE. So there were never any symbol collisions/mismatches. Moving them to ports has only made the whole procedure more cumbersome and error prone for everyone. Which makes this whole "how do we categorize/manage this whole pkg-base thing?" a complete mess w/o a clear or ideal solution. That's my take/experience FWIW. > > Kind regards > Miroslav Lachmanhelp
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?cc027f92f58b723db9b8c2a021b296a0>