Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2025 09:19:23 -0400 From: Matteo Riondato <matteo@FreeBSD.org> To: Lexi Winter <ivy@freebsd.org> Cc: Ronald Klop <ronald-lists@klop.ws>, current@freebsd.org, pkgbase@freebsd.org Subject: Re: should FreeBSD-dhclient depend on FreeBSD-resolvconf? Message-ID: <3E63F63B-0C90-43E2-BF55-30310B7599D3@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <aO-ZME6G4MbN-0c6@amaryllis.le-fay.org> References: <324231230.147694.1760527890049@localhost> <aO-QglIdge2VetmF@amaryllis.le-fay.org> <43B68BB6-02FA-470E-A8C5-99D15E3707D7@FreeBSD.org> <aO-TUeDnFPOS6Pds@amaryllis.le-fay.org> <89861E7A-64C7-47CB-89F6-A93AB14813FF@FreeBSD.org> <aO-ZME6G4MbN-0c6@amaryllis.le-fay.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Oct 15, 2025, at 8:53 AM, Lexi Winter <ivy@freebsd.org> wrote:
>=20
> Matteo Riondato wrote in =
<89861E7A-64C7-47CB-89F6-A93AB14813FF@FreeBSD.org>:
>>> On Oct 15, 2025, at 8:28 AM, Lexi Winter <ivy@freebsd.org> wrote:
>=20
>>> "minimal-jail" is "minimal" without software that doesn't work in =
jails.
>>> dhclient obviously works in jails, but i ommitted it since i thought =
it
>>> was extremely uncommon to use dhclient in a jail. but if this is =
more
>>> common than i thought, we can add it.
>>=20
>> It seems you had a definition ("'minimal-jail=E2=80=99 is all minus =
{what
>> doesn=E2=80=99t work in a jail}=E2=80=9D AND =E2=80=9Cis the minimal =
supported") but ignored
>> it for dhclient. That makes the definition not valid anymore.
>=20
> yes, your logic is very clever, but i am more interested in actionable
> changes we can make to improve the system for users.
Having clear documentation of what these meta-packages should/must/are =
expected include is an actionable change that improves the system for =
users: it clarifies to the users what to expect when they install the =
meta-packages, and clarifies to developers when to add/remove packages =
to/from the meta-packages.
>> It also seem that (before the change), dhclient in jails would not
>> have been supported (as =E2=80=98=E2=80=9Cminimal=E2=80=99 is the =
*minimal supported*
>> configuration=E2=80=9D, quote yours, emphasis mine), which would have =
been
>> bizarre.
>=20
> huh? i never said dhclient in a jail is not supported.
>=20
> "minimal supported configuration" means that for a basic installation =
of
> FreeBSD in a multi-user configuration, these are the packages you need
> to install. =20
> it doesn't mean you can't install any other packages. that
> would obviously be absurd.
Gotcha, I misunderstood that.
But then, what does =E2=80=9Cminimal supported=E2=80=9D mean, i.e., what =
role does =E2=80=9Csupported=E2=80=9D play?=20
If one removes a package (e.g., dhclient), is this configuration not =
supported?
You are using terms that seem not well defined: what=E2=80=99s a *basic* =
(earlier you used the term =E2=80=9Cstandard=E2=80=9D=E2=80=A6are these =
equivalent terms?) installation of FreeBSD in a multi-user =
configuration? Is there a list of packages that, when installed, create =
a basic (or a standard) installation? How did we arrive to this list? Is =
it self-defined. e.g., =E2=80=9Cthe packages in minimal define what a =
basic/standard FreeBSD installation in a multi-user configuration is=E2=80=
=9D?
I fear some of the meta-packages may become either a kitchen sink or =
=E2=80=9Ctoo minimal=E2=80=9D, if we don=E2=80=99t define exactly what =
each should accomplish.
Thanks,
Matteo
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3E63F63B-0C90-43E2-BF55-30310B7599D3>