Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 13:10:57 -0600 From: Bryan Drewery <bryan@shatow.net> To: Vsevolod Stakhov <vsevolod@FreeBSD.org>, pkg@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ruBSD 2013 pkg talk report Message-ID: <52B344C1.80304@shatow.net> In-Reply-To: <52B0E8B8.4030506@FreeBSD.org> References: <52B0E8B8.4030506@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 12/17/2013 6:13 PM, Vsevolod Stakhov wrote: > Hello, > > I'd like to summarize the feedback I've received from pkg users > during that event. I got many questions about ports and packages > and I think that questions are useful for the overall pkg > development. > > The most of questions were related to options and base system: > > Q: What if I have a package built from ports with some custom > options and a repository has newer package but with different set > of options? A: I proposed to skip updating such a package from > binary repo, but initiate its building from ports directly > (assuming that ports uses pkg for dependency/conflicts resolving). > That sounds reasonable and seems to be very convenient for an end > user. > > Q: What if I have a system with some build options that are not > compatible with binary packages, e.g. DISABLE_IPV6. A: I think it > is useful to have a special metafile for each repo that describes > compatible systems, including not merely ABI, but a specific set of > non-compatible options. The alternative is to create virtual base > system packages (e.g. kernel-noipv6), that may be placed in the > dependencies list. > > Q: What if I have my own custom repo that has older software but > with my local patches. A: I suggested to assign a priority to each > repo and never replace packages from a high priority repo by > packages from low priority repo. That should fix this request. > > Q: What about portupgrade and other related tools? A: I claimed > that these tools are going to be deprecated and packages will be > managed from pkg even if you want to build a custom package from > the sources. These tools are not deprecated for port building. portupgrade and portmaster will live on. They are port building tools. pkg is not. These are only no longer intended to be used to install packages. > > Q: Why have you chosen SAT and not X/Y or Z? A: SAT provides > mathematically proved basis for the whole problem and it is much > simpler to extend some proved base than to invent the wheel trying > to solve the specific problem. > > Q: Why haven't you chosen other solutions? A: We have 28K ports and > it is literally impossible to adopt each port to some external > system. Therefore we plan to migrate to the new world smoothly by > adding new features to SAT algorithm. > > Q: It seems that all these improvements are only in development or > projected state. A: Indeed, many of these features are not yet > implemented. Unfortunately, pkg system requires more developers > than there is now and we appreciate any help in improving pkg to > make our packages system better :) > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSs0TBAAoJEG54KsA8mwz5wqsP/iNP1/+Hr6hD+N/fUuwvTH/h nJCn2AaaAN0dEvF74I74+iyZGjlE8mZ2owVudJ72mZBnnITor1n4hDZJyQLY/tWI qGMqcvjQe9O9x5fl4GXVo+50OoEphowlYRX81KZLIq7b+6l9fLRvk/EoWbWqLZNN p4FHQEKJa22GwZ74a5E6zlQpeGCj1OZrXcnB4fJv9eBfqTFrCbgKq5wP0AShJnsF fYmKQS9De8jt2i9daSAyH3RgsLd4e4rwS/ulurrIN07qHq0ou/OYzew1v24miOb5 PoOQY3LihKvmTOJO7FBEKpdzoN/8XJdf5Q1zsNEgUzYwKWJhZvwz1SKUybh+GoK1 c3LCK78KJrj/tR6kzLpDs1Hc7kJwAgVf5GFdmPQDY9M7ZBIRF3RKcbmmS3ZQbSko yAf+ErsmxuWgZyVIT5WdZDEg5CTqCbObIAJdL4oGOfq6EYEJV3cfm3g+bEQxqC0e aPKDIuy2MjRoHwG6U26ykkK9KQmEncq73QP7262EcZgCInBvcLiyrRRAAYeB4fbB 0ambtgrGvlD7Dunrf9lcOp+puEohIFCCUqE3yWimCuF+X8X0k2kLevH+tJz4536E vVTVwlp1aUTM6MJuvYEf64Qr55NWg4TKbFTybmhQbuB3rL6X/AE3zYr2d9vTw5wO Hh9Sd6HFXaEyxDJq3kHC =c/6+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?52B344C1.80304>