Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 00:55:48 +0300 From: Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw@zxy.spb.ru> To: Rainer Duffner <rainer@ultra-secure.de> Cc: lev@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-current Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8) Message-ID: <20160418215548.GE6614@zxy.spb.ru> In-Reply-To: <2D6C2427-806C-4F18-8B1C-263CCC34CF21@ultra-secure.de> 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> <2D6C2427-806C-4F18-8B1C-263CCC34CF21@ultra-secure.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 10:30:48PM +0200, Rainer Duffner wrote: > > > Am 18.04.2016 um 22:07 schrieb Lev Serebryakov <lev@FreeBSD.org>: > > > > 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... > > > > From the discussion, I believe it’s primarily driven by the need/desire to have small packages to make updates easier on the mirror-servers. > > I’m really not sure (yet), which is worse: the current system that pulls down some 14k small files for a system-upgrade - or a system where the base-system is split into almost 800 packages. Lesser of files is best. 800 packages is better then 14k. 10 packages is better then 800. > freebsd-update is „only" unreliable if > - you go through a proxy with authentication > - that proxy doesn’t do http-pipelining (or does it bad/is broken is this respect) (certain version of Sophos UTM for example…) freebsd-update broken on server side. freebsd-update not relaible on client side. freebsd-update to long even on SSD and 10Gbit connectivity. freebsd-update to long to prepare (4x times longer of one compiling) > AFAIK. > > As for the packages: I wouldn’t mind „fatter“ packages. I’d mirror them locally anyway (I hope this is possible - AFAIK, the freebsd-update files are not supposed to be mirrored), and I don’t have a thousand servers to pull them down all at once anyway (working on that ;-)). > > I’m pretty sure the impact on the current FreeBSD delivery infrastructure would be quite substantial, if updates came in 60MB chunks - esp. if there was some sort of auto-update mechanism in place. > Fast-forward to the future where a lot (millions?) more embedded devices are based on FreeBSD and pull updates from the FreeBSD infrastructure. Hundred of millions iPad and iPhones got update in near-gigabyte chunks. > Or if the container hype-train reached FreeBSD and people started to containerize everything, resulting in even more base-package update downloads. > > So, I can see both sides. Neither I’m really satisfied with. > > I hope a way is found to manage these number of packages without losing sanity and that a normal pkg info doesn’t list them. > And that pkg upgrade doesn’t upgrade base-packages. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20160418215548.GE6614>