From owner-freebsd-pkgbase@freebsd.org Tue Apr 19 14:27:53 2016 Return-Path: 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 E3336B13AAA; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 14:27:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from alfred@freebsd.org) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [IPv6:2001:470:1f05:b76::196]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE3C71DB2; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 14:27:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from alfred@freebsd.org) Received: from Alfreds-MacBook-Pro-2.local (unknown [IPv6:2601:645:8003:a4d6:8899:e9c:e753:74e4]) by elvis.mu.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 527C6346DFA0; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 07:27:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8) To: Julian Elischer , lev@FreeBSD.org, Glen Barber , Nathan Whitehorn References: <20160302235429.GD75641@FreeBSD.org> <57152CE5.5050500@FreeBSD.org> <9D4B9C8B-41D7-42BC-B436-D23EFFF60261@ixsystems.com> <20160418191425.GW1554@FreeBSD.org> <571533B8.6090109@freebsd.org> <20160418194010.GX1554@FreeBSD.org> <57153E80.4080800@FreeBSD.org> <571551AB.4070203@freebsd.org> <5715E1E9.8060507@freebsd.org> Cc: Sean Fagan , freebsd-pkgbase@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org From: Alfred Perlstein Organization: FreeBSD Message-ID: <57164068.8080800@freebsd.org> Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 07:27:52 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5715E1E9.8060507@freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-pkgbase@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Packaging the FreeBSD base system." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 14:27:54 -0000 Again, the point is that those objecting should put aside the time to implement what you (and I) are suggesting: > I could live with: > > base-utils 11.1 > - ktrace uninstalled > - tcpdump uninstalled > + dd 11.1.1 (CVE-123412 fix) > > > > but not > {700 packages ) > dd 11.1.1 dd with CVE fix > {29 more packages} > [tcpdump line is not present but you don't notice that] > {10 more packages} > [ktrace line would be here but you don't notice that either] > {15 more packages} What should not happen is that this incremental step forward be blocked by those unwilling to hash out the next steps. -Alfred On 4/19/16 12:44 AM, Julian Elischer wrote: > On 19/04/2016 5:29 AM, Alfred Perlstein wrote: >> Guys please stop arguing about the number of packages. The high >> granularity is VERY useful! >> > it's going to make us a laughing stock > "look FreeBSD just split into 1.43 million packages" (effectively the > same number.. it's bigger than 10) > > >> Managing large groups of small packages is much easier than just >> having large packages. > err, Alfred, what planet do you live on? when they get out of sync it > becomes a nightmare. > If you also had a packaging system that was smart enough to manage a > hierarchy of packages then "maybe".. > >> >> All this can be done by meta-packages which depend on larger package >> groups. > Currently Metapackage is a way to make 10 packages look like 11 > packages. The framework needs to understand to hide the 10 internal > packages if they are part of a metapackage. >> >> Later pkg can be augmented to "remove packages not explicitly >> installed" which would remove leaf packages. >> >> Example: you installed "base-debug" which pulls in let's say 50 small >> packages, later you want all of those removed, you can do something >> like: "pkg delete --leafs base-debug" which should delete >> "base-debug" and any dangling packages it pulled in not required by >> other pkgs. >> >> Huge thanks to the team that implemented this! > > I'm sure the work was large and will be useful in the future but we > are not ready to have the system installed like this. > no-one wants to see 750 packages show up when you do an enquiry on a > newly installed system. > I could live with: > > base-utils 11.1 > - ktrace uninstalled > - tcpdump uninstalled > + dd 11.1.1 (CVE-123412 fix) > > > > but not > {700 packages ) > dd 11.1.1 dd with CVE fix > {29 more packages} > [tcpdump line is not present but you don't notice that] > {10 more packages} > [ktrace line would be here but you don't notice that either] > {15 more packages} > > > In other words, I have no objection to all the utilities coming in the > form of little packages. > but I have a major objection if that fact is at all obvious to the end > user, > and certainly if we need to wade through 750 packages to see what's > going on. > >> >> thanks. >> -Alfred >> >> On 4/18/16 1:07 PM, Lev Serebryakov wrote: >>> On 18.04.2016 22:40, Glen Barber wrote: >>> >>>> This granularity allows easy removal of things that may not be wanted >>>> (such as *-debug*, *-profile*, etc.) on systems with little >>>> storage. On >>>> one of my testing systems, I removed the tests packages and all debug >>>> and profiling, and the number of base system packages is 383. >>> IMHO, granularity like "all base debug", "all base profile" is enough >>> for this. Really, I hardly could imagine why I will need only 1 >>> debug or >>> profile package, say, for csh. On resource-constrained systems NanoBSD >>> is much better anyway (for example, my typical NanoBSD installation is >>> 37MB base system, 12MB /boot and 10 packages), and on developer system >>> where you need profiled libraries it is Ok to install all of them and >>> don't think about 100 packages for them. >>> >>> Idea of "Roles" from old FreeBSD installers looks much better. Again, >>> here are some "contrib" software which have one-to-one replacements in >>> ports, like sendmail, ssh/sshd, ntpd, but split all other >>> FreeBSD-specific code? Yes, debug. Yes, profile. Yes, static libraries. >>> Yes, lib32 on 64 bit system. >>> >>> It seems that it is ideological ("holy war") discussion more than >>> technical one... >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list >> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to >> "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >> >