Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 16:09:59 -0400 From: <kris@ixsystems.com> To: "'Cy Schubert'" <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com> Cc: <freebsd-pkgbase@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: CFT: FreeBSD Package Base Message-ID: <00fb01d4fec7$86559650$9300c2f0$@ixsystems.com> In-Reply-To: <201904291931.x3TJV73d079802@slippy.cwsent.com> References: Message from "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> of "Mon, 29 Apr 2019 07:41:22 -0700." <201904291441.x3TEfMid072751@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> <201904291931.x3TJV73d079802@slippy.cwsent.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> -----Original Message----- > From: Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com> > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2019 3:31 PM > To: Rodney W. Grimes <freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> > Cc: Kris Moore <kris@ixsystems.com>; FreeBSD Stable <freebsd- > stable@freebsd.org>; freebsd-ports@freebsd.org; Goran Meki=E6 > <meka@tilda.center>; freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; FreeBSD Current > <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>; freebsd-pkgbase@freebsd.org; freebsd- > pkg@freebsd.org; Emmanuel Vadot <manu@bidouilliste.com> > Subject: Re: CFT: FreeBSD Package Base >=20 > In message <201904291441.x3TEfMid072751@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>, "Rodney > W. > Grimes" > writes: > > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 10:09 AM Rodney W. Grimes < > > > freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Correct, this is ZFS only. And it's something we're using > > > > > specific to > > > > FreeNAS / TrueOS, which is why I didn't originally mention it as > > > > apart of our CFT. > > > > > > > > Then please it is "CFT: FreeNAS/TrueOS pkg base, ZFS only", > > > > calling this FreeBSD pkg base when it is not was wrong, and miss > > > > leading. > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, I disagree. > > Which is fine. > > > > > This pkg base is independent of the ZFS tool we're using to = wrangle > > > boot-environments. Hence why it wasn't mentioned in the CFT. > > > These base packages work the same as existing in-tree pkg base on > > > UFS, no difference. If anything are probably safer due to being = able > > > to update all of userland in single extract operation, so you = don't > > > have out of order extraction of libc or some such. > > > > You missed the major string change and focused on the edge, No = comment > > on calling iXsystems :stuff: FreeBSD instead of FreeNAS/TrueOS? > > > > That was the major point of my statement, your miss leading the user > > community, you yourself said this would never be imported into = FreeBSD > > base, so I see no reason that it should be called "FreeBSD package > > Base", as it is not, that is a different project. >=20 > Taking the last comment on this thread to ask a question and maybe = refocus > a little. >=20 > The discussion about granularity begs the question, why pkgbase in the first > place? My impression was that it allowed people to select which = components > they wanted to either create a lean installation or mix and match base > packages and ports (possibly with flavours to install in /usr rather = than > $LOCALBASE) such that maybe person A wanted a stock install while = person > B wanted to replace, picking a random example, BSD tar with GNU tar. = Isn't > that the real advantage of pkgbase? >=20 > If OTOH it's binary updates V 2.0, what's the point? I'm a little rhetorical here > but you get my point. If I want ipfw instead pf or ipfilter instead of = the others > I should have the freedom. Similarly if I want vim instead of vi I = should have > the choice to install vim as /usr/bin/vi. Otherwise all the effort to replace > binary updates makes no sense. >=20 >=20 That is a fantastic point. The way we've been doing it is with the os/userland meta-pkg. Using ZoL as an example, we build userland with = the ZFS options disabled, then added a ZOL option to userland, which makes sysutils/zol a depend of userland meta-pkg. Over time I can see this becoming a trend, were we replace bits of base = (by setting WITHOUT_*) and injecting the ports version of those bits via = regular pkg depends. Good candidates would be tools like svn / git, mailers, compilers, shells, editors, etc. Ironically this was an issue in the current pkg base implementation that = led us to flattening out the userland package. We found that run-time = removal of specific packages just flat out didn't work. I.E. pkg delete FreeBSD-zfs didn't work without re-compiling all the things in advance using the = proper WITHOUT_* flags. Same for trying to remove RADIUS support, or others. = Too many things tended to change in seemingly un-related packages, you'd = almost need a full set of flavors for a lot of WITH/WITHOUT combinations for = that to be viable.=20 Additionally, this was why we combined base/ports into a single pkg = repo. By building both through poudriere, it makes it possible to properly = interject depends and upgrade in lock-step. Really changes the paradigm of what is base/ports in a positive way IMHO.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?00fb01d4fec7$86559650$9300c2f0$>