Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 19:11:11 +1100 From: Dewayne Geraghty <dewaynegeraghty@gmail.com> To: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org> Cc: ports-list freebsd <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: HEADSUP: FLAVORS (initial version) and subpackages proposals Message-ID: <CAGnMC6pzH-xXinb3y1wjSXQ5aExvcts5KMiv0VUaCaug-%2B4Pxg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <8bc4754a-7200-b91d-8435-c6ff1970b56b@FreeBSD.org> References: <20161219003143.c2qo5wn3a5kiua3m@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <58725f6d-aa60-3a62-7539-56e51e3cd76e@m5p.com> <8bc4754a-7200-b91d-8435-c6ff1970b56b@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thanks Bapt et al, I use FreeBSD and the ports system extensively, we build everything from source and largely customise approx 25% of the 900 packages we rely upon. I'm more than a little concerned to have changes performed against the ports infrastructure. As our primary sources of (whats coming) "Change" information are the: Quarterly reports and the OS Release Notes; after-the-fact sources are a daily review of https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-src-stable-11/2016-December/thread.html for OS impact; and the excellent Freshports. So a few questions: Could you be able to enlighten us (the readers) so we can better understand what will be changed; or share your vision of the benefits and operational impact for operational people that build: from source; and those that only use binary? Is there a transition plan or schedule for the bulk of these changes to occur? Will the flavors/subpackages be developed separately from the existing ports suite? (I'm hoping that the parent ports will be unaffected, and so our existing build procedures continue to build correctly) How will we (the users/admins) track or be informed of changes or better, planned/soon changes? (will changes to ports, particularly parent ports, be co-ordinated through UPDATING or perhaps a new FLAVOURS file if the parent is say a stub and the real decisions are relocated to slaves?) Will there be any guidance regarding how flavours/packages should be created or the criteria for creating sub-packages (secure/insecure; all options on/off; most useable options on; most liked by the maintainer; most likely to be used for a datacentre; most likely to be used for desktops; ...)? Will "The Porter's Handbook" be updated for things like criteria; naming conventions etc? For folks (like me) that build entirely from source and customise options to build the applications, how will flavours/subpackages be of benefit? Will the ability to customise ports, as they exist today, remain? Will I even notice a change? I'd like to plan ahead to make this transition seemless and continue to use FreeBSD and the excellent ports system as we do now. I started with FreeBSD 2.2.8. There were packages available from the FreeBSD website. It was a terrific aid. We also enjoyed the different flavours of jail that were provided by ezjail. However over time, both evolved as did our expertise to customise our ports (~200 custom ports) and Jamie Gratton evolved the jail system to eliminate our need of the excellent ezjail tool. So I can see merit in, what very little I'm guessing of, the next evolution of ports. Aside: we already build different package configurations from existing ports' source. (eg different bind910 with/without kerberos; different samba44's; simultaineous building of dhcp-[server|client|relay] etc) I look forward to being on the same page and to understand where this is going, the likely/potential impact; the naming conventions; etc. Kind regards, Dewayne.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAGnMC6pzH-xXinb3y1wjSXQ5aExvcts5KMiv0VUaCaug-%2B4Pxg>