Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 15:44:24 -0500 From: Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> To: doug@safeport.com Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: New packaging approach Message-ID: <1c6fbb48-6029-2d93-8fff-675ef800b3c2@columbus.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.20.1712101201270.91490@fledge.watson.org> References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1712100018070.47298@bucksport.safeport.com> <07f48e07-ce70-7a26-ea19-fd389375afb4@columbus.rr.com> <alpine.BSF.2.20.1712101201270.91490@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12/10/2017 1:54 PM, doug wrote:
>
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2017, Baho Utot wrote:
>
>> On 12/10/2017 12:33 AM, DTD wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, 9 Dec 2017, Polytropon wrote:
>>>
>>>> However, I am not sure how the new packaging approach will handle
>>>> this. As you might have read, pkg will be used for installing and
>>>> upgrading OS files in the future, so there will not be the big
>>>> difference "freebsd-update" and "pkg update" / "pkg upgrade".
>>>
>>> Where can I read about this? If this leads to dependency issues
>>> similar to those encountered with desktops, my reaction is more of
>>> 'oh s--t' rather then 'oh boy'. Back to the days when the odd or
>>> even versions numbers were for those of us (read me) who do not
>>> track Stable for similar reasons.
>>>
>>
>> The way the packaging of base is currently being done will*guarantee
>> a great level of OH SHIT.
>
> First, I will qualify my comments by saying I am an end user. I did
> take Kurt McKusick's internals course a decade or so ago. Never ended
> up going anywhere with C but it was/is a good way to understand the
> workings and to be a better sysadmin. My experience with FreeBSD is
> that once release engineering was fully integrated into the upgrade
> process in the 4.x's, maybe the version 5 era (memory goes shortly
> after the tolerance for coding 12 hrs/day) I have never had any issues
> through cvsup, Subversion, and freebsd-update. If you follow the
> releases, they work. Maybe if you are developing a port or are a
> contributor to the base, things are not so rosy. But here in userland
> things are better managed than IBM did with MFT, MVT into MVS. I'm
> pretty sure those guys got paid pretty well and did not have to have a
> day job to do what they really wanted to.
>
> That's a really wordy way to say I disagree with the idea that
> development of the base OS has been mis-handled. In server-land since
> 4.5 no gotcha's here (as a keeper of servers). Things are a bit
> rougher if you want to run a FreeBSD workstation. On my current
> desktop I have gimp, libre office and my window manager of choice. 613
> packages and items built from ports. The pkg frame-work is much
> improved over the old pkg_add et all. However, the number of
> combinations of {613,n} where n is the number of shared libraries,
> dynamic and static is a large number (finite but unbounded). And all
> involved have to get all the dependencies right to have zero problems.
>
> My concern is, if it works don't fix it. And, if you must, I would
> like to start getting up to speed on it ASAP. I have access to every
> freebsd list but have not found a discussion of this. My only request
> is to be pointed to where I can follow the discussion.
Have you ever used the "packaged base" If not you don't have a clue to
just how bad it is
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1c6fbb48-6029-2d93-8fff-675ef800b3c2>