Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 11:22:18 -0700 From: Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@freebsd.org> To: Roger Marquis <marquis@roble.com>, Lev Serebryakov <lev@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@FreeBSD.org>, Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@orthanc.ca>, freebsd-pkgbase@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8) Message-ID: <5716775A.2000401@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <201604191755.u3JHtbfS020358@l.mx.sonic.net> 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> <571551AB.4070203@freebsd.org> <5715772A.3070306@freebsd.org> <571588BB.2070803@orthanc.ca> <201604190201.u3J216NQ054020@orthanc.ca> <5715968B.303@orthanc.ca> <5715A338.5060009@freebsd.org> <57165C91.7070005@freebsd.org> <57166870.5060104@FreeBSD.org> <201604191755.u3JHtbfS020358@l.mx.sonic.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 04/19/16 10:55, Roger Marquis wrote: >> Please, consider ops and admins, who must support old installations, >> often made by other, not-reachable, people, and stuff like this, > > Ops and admins such as myself are exactly the ones who will benefit most > from base packages. Being able run to: 1) 'pkg audit' and see that base > ssl has a vulnerability, 2) 'pkg install -f' to update 3) only those > specific parts of base that need to be updated is far simpler (KIS) and > faster than what we go through now. More than a few formerly bsd shops > have migrated to linux simply to avoid regular iterations of cd > /usr/src; svn up; make cleanworld; make buildworld installworld ... > > The use cases for granular base packages are more numerous than even > these obvious ones. The downside OTOH, seems to consist of not much > more than the size of the package list. If I missed other issues please > do clarify. Will base packages be improved, sure, but they're already > more useful and bugfree than pkgng when it was mandated. > > In any case, if I'm not mistaken base packages are entirely optional. > > Roger Marquis > Thanks, Roger. That seems perfectly reasonable. I'm not sure that goal is really met by having 800 packages, though, or at least I see no particular gain relative to a handful (where things like OpenSSL or sendmail would be discrete things). (Almost) every single individual library in the base system is right now its own single-file package, which is what I am objecting to. The upside of that seems pretty dubious and the downside is that it is much easier to accidentally put the system into an inconsistent state. Is there a reason you want to have such very fine discretization? -Nathan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5716775A.2000401>