From nobody Fri Oct 17 07:13:02 2025 X-Original-To: freebsd-pkgbase@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4cnwyc4q6Jz6Cn03 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2025 07:13:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ivy@freebsd.org) Received: from smtp.freebsd.org (smtp.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::24b:4]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.freebsd.org", Issuer "R13" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4cnwyc40Kzz3g3G; Fri, 17 Oct 2025 07:13:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ivy@freebsd.org) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=freebsd.org; s=dkim; t=1760685192; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=vksju8q3D180rDmztpjOIp6OLJjXGzRiP2Mw9TWCK8U=; b=XB5Q1dTEuhHebPonA3BImjCgIxXwNh42e8NbLcvxPnv9tKlt89WF1TZyQvfbjkzDNwMKgL nRj6XNTYkDWy9U18PzEParTTY8VgnUjTnz5heMV/PbFV6zk7Of9KN1YSBE8nuh9n8rsxx3 jrQQ/6K8+gG6hr92k0WreZsR/Ns5rX6Gq0wASPeNYw1OdDzie0WEzBdO2BeWdP2hI1rKSp BH6wvq91vFLTmIN0HwHDuLhEEYCwHM1IF281T07qCrvbQmj5cqstTzUU0M2P8DNFKrlipk bESiQYQjGCKp3FRehSivwt2wlrd6x4lpv43GoSTMW74inUmkjclYoETXbUyPAA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=freebsd.org; s=dkim; t=1760685192; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=vksju8q3D180rDmztpjOIp6OLJjXGzRiP2Mw9TWCK8U=; b=Ybi0a9dAsQ/TWoTY1lcIHAM4YGQ4iS8gpPSQtcEziWXFRCRllCUzlKuzjJfGpUoZcofI0P z6rVEfEKruUFBBIkPsoZ0ujdwzCG5gwMQHJ0MvCnHL91IbC4xrBYHISG0r6GMvJamF7BY/ IGRVQDXMoTlXODAHj5yzqq0mX5iWJkLzOPuilhOS+m14aqiUAt8Flw/QbBAXpjXo6rWFvY nH8EiObzLT22XX/DDPDud5i1vQpsDaPVinIVhfDgWQkvW0ryWHeoaDltxBqiLfIeGATEhn ZmJjHYLcyc5hrmjOZaVaFhdyeN8kuAmTRwI1zWXnxo0UKHCUD1pEcq06F+3a4A== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=dkim; d=freebsd.org; t=1760685192; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=pDfHRiuN8VTcjCvTqmKpgHiTqnIJfj9WtF/xrSpDNqPKTKYi3LgwM30/USI3L5ATHU/qY8 u/TD3wgu8+2c7FHvCGKNONqA9AuQLbxIfoPPM+kjlY5uBR9B/l/deG7KzZRz17MYwWRx55 9VXjjfikfSOK9cpMWkXacs069eom1U40faXczdecpkz033wOXagJSAOWdjOJmuXO2HxaPG cBGj+/GKhUYt3Nw1p2YaSsURcg230ki9duXGoEWjxSYDz85W6q1uf21v4mDNhfqp/LVu40 lbyeBMukxlbahEjih8RU5XexHvOxagLlaYa/OrL+ZZh2d6VcUjJp0CDAG8X4Rw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx1.freebsd.org; none Received: from amaryllis.le-fay.org (amaryllis.le-fay.org [IPv6:2a00:1098:6b:400::9]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: ivy/mail) by smtp.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4cnwyc1D8Gz5d8; Fri, 17 Oct 2025 07:13:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ivy@freebsd.org) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2025 08:13:02 +0100 From: Lexi Winter To: Olivier Certner Cc: freebsd-pkgbase@freebsd.org Subject: Re: user feedback Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: Olivier Certner , freebsd-pkgbase@freebsd.org References: <06f829a7-4378-4a24-a3db-f929d812cddd@gmx.at> <3294629.dr8DHy2Ehi@ravel> List-Id: Packaging the FreeBSD base system List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-pkgbase List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-pkgbase@FreeBSD.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="DYtarVSTvWPyBdZn" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3294629.dr8DHy2Ehi@ravel> --DYtarVSTvWPyBdZn Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Olivier Certner wrote in <3294629.dr8DHy2Ehi@ravel>: > For now, I still tend to think that we should be able to somehow keep > a distinction between base and ports for 'pkg delete -a'. I didn't > follow closely but IIRC you were considering solving that by tagging > (some) base packages as vital, which may or may not be enough this is not sufficient: vital prevents 'pkg delete -a' from working, but doesn't affect 'pkg delete -af', since '-f' specifically means "i know what i'm doing, ignore any safeguards and remove the packages". this includes the vital flag. > (argument against: Once you've removed some base packages by accident, > but can still execute some basic commands thanks to those flagged > vital, your system is not dead but you'd better have a set of base > packages available to re-install; if you used poudriere just to > rebuild ports, you don't necessarily have them handy; flagging all > base packages as vital does not seem to make much sense, and anyway > leads us back to square one). if this were how it worked, that wouldn't be so bad: all sets are marked as vital, including set-minimal (which should provide a completely functional system by itself) as well as set-optional and set-base which are selectable in bsdinstall. however, the vital flag doesn't actually make a difference here. rather than changing the behaviour of pkg options, perhaps a solution here would be to more clearly indicate in the pkg delete output that vital packags will be removed. pkg already prints the list of packages to be removed, but since base packages are usually sorted first, most people probably don't bother reading the entire list. if we split this into a separate section, clearly marked as "Vital packages to be removed:", and perhaps changed to prompt to ask "Are you sure you want to remove these packages which are vital to the operation of the system?", people might be more likely to notice what they're asking for? > PS: Could you please consider removing or fixing the > "Mail-Followup-To:" headers from your mails to mailing lists? Not > only they remove your address from the default list of recipients when > replying to all (which you probably intended?), yes, this is intentional: my MUA automatically adds these headers so i don't get duplicate copies of replies to my list posts. (i filter these in procmail anyway, but sometimes list managers rewrite message-ids, so that isn't reliable.) > but they also add the address of the author of the mail you replied to > in "To:", which is in general wrong and annoying. i'm not sure what you mean here. when i reply to a list post, i put the author of the post i'm replying to in "To", and any list addresses or other relevant recipients in "Cc". that means over time, a particular (sub)thread will gradually collect more addresses in the To/Cc list. as far as i'm aware, this has always been the normal method to reply to list posts; Mail-Followup-To simpliy codifies this in a more standard way, and allows people to opt-out of receiving Cc copies if they don't want to. i do manually trim the Cc list if it's becoming excessively long, which should also remove those addresses from Mail-Followup-To. if other people set Mail-Followup-To headers as well, they won't end up in To/Cc in the first place, so this only affects people who have indicated they want the default mailing list behaviour (i.e., being on the Cc list for replies). it's not possible for me to manually set the To/Cc/Mail-Followup-To list to only include people who are not subscribed to a particular list, because i have no idea who is subscribed to what list. i could just set it to only include the list address, but then people who aren't subscribed to the list won't receive replies. --DYtarVSTvWPyBdZn Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEABYKAB0WIQSyjTg96lp3RifySyn1nT63mIK/YAUCaPHsdwAKCRD1nT63mIK/ YDGNAP9+vQmS/wFyXleItVRdLYjoLLuX+/I6G4GnsCYcOjFj8gD/ebvdpWn/6PNF qY/FfLBOBe7Ekvkytb/DJxuTHhBVWQQ= =X/b/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --DYtarVSTvWPyBdZn--