From owner-freebsd-pkgbase@freebsd.org Mon Apr 18 19:32:07 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-pkgbase@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 4E2FEB130BD; Mon, 18 Apr 2016 19:32:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from nwhitehorn@freebsd.org) Received: from d.mail.sonic.net (d.mail.sonic.net [64.142.111.50]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3BFDE1BF5; Mon, 18 Apr 2016 19:32:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from nwhitehorn@freebsd.org) Received: from zeppelin.tachypleus.net (airbears2-136-152-142-124.airbears2.berkeley.edu [136.152.142.124]) (authenticated bits=0) by d.mail.sonic.net (8.15.1/8.15.1) with ESMTPSA id u3IJLSxV012136 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 18 Apr 2016 12:21:28 -0700 Subject: Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8) To: Glen Barber , Sean Fagan References: <20160302235429.GD75641@FreeBSD.org> <57152CE5.5050500@FreeBSD.org> <9D4B9C8B-41D7-42BC-B436-D23EFFF60261@ixsystems.com> <20160418191425.GW1554@FreeBSD.org> Cc: lev@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-pkgbase@freebsd.org From: Nathan Whitehorn Message-ID: <571533B8.6090109@freebsd.org> Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 12:21:28 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160418191425.GW1554@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Sonic-CAuth: UmFuZG9tSVbZbJpPUwd5jajtYqBeiTkNsO6njAYHiuK1Isz1kVZXtc7cHj5fs3davLqIMiavA7d412y/QwYWTL48wlhwEqKj3cYBblcPSYs= X-Sonic-ID: C;ZsXIv5oF5hGyJ7eqjlfmnQ== M;JEf3v5oF5hGyJ7eqjlfmnQ== X-Spam-Flag: No X-Sonic-Spam-Details: 0.0/5.0 by cerberusd X-BeenThere: freebsd-pkgbase@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Packaging the FreeBSD base system." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 19:32:07 -0000 On 04/18/16 12:14, Glen Barber wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:01:46PM -0700, Sean Fagan wrote: >> On Apr 18, 2016, at 11:52 AM, Lev Serebryakov wrote: >>> I understand, that maybe it is too late, but ARE YOU KIDDING?! 755 >>> packages?! WHY?! What are reasons and goals to split base in such >>> enormous number of packages? >> Just a guess, having done the same thing myself: it means that updates can be >> more targeted. >> > This is exactly the reason, which has been answered numerous times. > > Glen > That's a good reason -- and a very nice outcome of having base system packages -- but I worry that it may be going too far. The most granular updates would be if every file were its own package, which is obviously crazy, and so there is some middle ground. Needing to grab a whole new base.txz is probably too much (60 MB), but splitting that into even 6 or 7 pieces moves the updates to replacements with typical size (a few MB) that are no larger than typical package updates for ports. -Nathan