From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Tue Mar 8 15:45:39 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04ED7AC3AE2; Tue, 8 Mar 2016 15:45:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from slw@zxy.spb.ru) Received: from zxy.spb.ru (zxy.spb.ru [195.70.199.98]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BBFE31AF; Tue, 8 Mar 2016 15:45:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from slw@zxy.spb.ru) Received: from slw by zxy.spb.ru with local (Exim 4.86 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1adJpH-000GOv-NE; Tue, 08 Mar 2016 18:45:35 +0300 Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 18:45:35 +0300 From: Slawa Olhovchenkov To: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> Cc: Glen Barber , freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-pkgbase@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8) Message-ID: <20160308154535.GC70809@zxy.spb.ru> References: <20160302235429.GD75641@FreeBSD.org> <20160308124016.GA70809@zxy.spb.ru> <20160308131847.GP1531@FreeBSD.org> <56DED60C.8060004@quip.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <56DED60C.8060004@quip.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: slw@zxy.spb.ru X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zxy.spb.ru); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2016 15:45:39 -0000 On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 02:39:24PM +0100, Miroslav Lachman wrote: > Glen Barber wrote on 03/08/2016 14:18: > > On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 03:40:16PM +0300, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: > > [...] > > >> Packaging of individual utilites is useless (total 19MB vs > >> 30.7+2.8+20.7+2.9) and incorrect (for example, WITHOUT_ACCT not only > >> don't build accton/lastcomm/sa but also cut off accaunting code from > >> kernel for space saving and perforamce). > >> > > > > Packaging individual utilities is not useless, depending on who you ask. > > One of the first replies I received when starting separating userland > > utilities into separate packages was further splitting rwho(1) and > > rwhod(8) into different packages, the use case being not necessarily > > needing (or wanting) the rwho(1) utility on systems where rwhod(8) runs. > > I didn't tried pkg base yet but I read posts on mailinglist. I > understand the need of separating and splitting on the one side and I > understand the fear of too long list of packages when one need to do > some maintenance (update or upgrade). So one idea come to my mind - what > about some meta-packages like "utilities, kernel, libs32, debug" hiding > all details about real packages if there are some env variable or > command line switch turned on? > Meta-packages is used in current ports for things like PHP extensions. > These ports meta-packages are not hiding real packages so this can be > improved for base packages. Complexly not only in long list of packages: - comparing two list from different setups - checking for missing of install some packages - checking for installed additional packages - depends calculating (not all host run on power hardware, I am use VIA C3, for example) All of this don't resolving by meta-packages. > It is just a quick idea how to satisfy both sides ;) > > Miroslav Lachman >