From nobody Fri Aug 8 02:14:12 2025 X-Original-To: freebsd-pkgbase@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4bynf900cYz63v2G; Fri, 08 Aug 2025 02:14:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from vermaden@interia.pl) Received: from smtpo69.interia.pl (smtpo69.interia.pl [217.74.67.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4bynf81Wb9z4GYK; Fri, 08 Aug 2025 02:14:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from vermaden@interia.pl) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=interia.pl header.s=biztos header.b=rQz59lW7; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of vermaden@interia.pl designates 217.74.67.69 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=vermaden@interia.pl; dmarc=pass (policy=quarantine) header.from=interia.pl Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2025 04:14:12 +0200 From: vermaden Subject: Re: PKGBASE Removes FreeBSD Base System Feature To: Sulev-Madis Silber , "freebsd-current@freebsd.org" , "freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org" , "freebsd-pkgbase@FreeBSD.org" X-Mailer: interia.pl/pf09 In-Reply-To: References: X-Originating-IP: 45.148.42.1 Message-Id: List-Id: Packaging the FreeBSD base system List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-pkgbase List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-pkgbase@FreeBSD.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=interia.pl; s=biztos; t=1754619255; bh=3PZAjWJG5fOBfTo7E0Z23Bh6Ue0nQ/jR3dx6AmtfUAk=; h=Date:From:Subject:To:Message-Id:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=rQz59lW7DxOEAogz/jcSX2wV+CSHy2DpCabQcflnIBAApUFtJ2E60OMZeFsHPLNSK NgRUespiBgDg5XT2mExXHQAKjFGKAXDW849zT1aT9PjtWdNhvJfYG/B0bcKO1W50rD 6DQwmlr220Dg23uepeOsIlSJI5FgjGpb1TZsH7x8= X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.60 / 15.00]; DWL_DNSWL_LOW(-1.00)[interia.pl:dkim]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-1.00)[-1.000]; MID_RHS_NOT_FQDN(0.50)[]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[interia.pl,quarantine]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:217.74.64.0/22:c]; RWL_MAILSPIKE_VERYGOOD(-0.20)[217.74.67.69:from]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[interia.pl:s=biztos]; ONCE_RECEIVED(0.10)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; SUSPICIOUS_AUTH_ORIGIN(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; TO_DN_EQ_ADDR_SOME(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:16138, ipnet:217.74.64.0/22, country:PL]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[4]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[interia.pl:+]; HAS_XOIP(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_ZERO(0.00)[0]; MLMMJ_DEST(0.00)[freebsd-current@freebsd.org,freebsd-pkgbase@freebsd.org,freebsd-stable@freebsd.org]; FREEMAIL_FROM(0.00)[interia.pl]; FREEMAIL_ENVFROM(0.00)[interia.pl] X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4bynf81Wb9z4GYK X-Spamd-Bar: ---- One small 'patch' ... - this is not unacceptable to say the least. + this is unacceptable to say the least. Temat: Re: PKGBASE Removes FreeBSD Base System Feature Data: 2025-08-08 3:37 Nadawca: "vermaden" <vermaden@interia.pl> Adresat: "Sulev-Madis Silber" <freebsd-current-freebsd-org111@ketas.si.p= ri.ee>; "freebsd-current@freebsd.org" <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>; fre= ebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org; freebsd-pkgbase@FreeBSD.org;=20 >=20 >> OK, Colin Percival just announced 15.0-PRERELEASE - yet the PKGBASE concept - besides 'kinda working' - does not holds to the POLA principle at all - and if anyone will chose to use PKGBASE instead of 'classic' install the 'pkg delete -af' will not only delete all the third party packages but will also WIPE almost ENTIRE BASE SYSTEM of FreeBSD ... this is not unacceptable to say the least. >=20 > My 'vote' here does not changed. >=20 > Lets keep pkg(8) for third party packages with: > - /etc/pkg > - /usr/local/etc/pkg > - /var/db/pkg >=20 > Lets have pkgbase(8) for FreeBSD Base System PKGBASE with: > - /etc/pkgbase > - /usr/local/etc/pkgbase > - /var/db/pkgbase >=20 > Its literally the same 'separation' as the Base System for binaries: > - /bin > - /usr/bin > - /sbin > - /usr/sbin >=20 > And /usr/local PREFIX for third party packages as: > - /usr/local/bin > - /usr/local/sbin >=20 > Regards, > vermaden >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Temat: Re: PKGBASE Removes FreeBSD Base System Feature > Data: 2025-08-07 2:10 > Nadawca: "Sulev-Madis Silber" <freebsd-current-freebsd-org111@ketas.si.pri.ee> > Adresat: freebsd-current@freebsd.org;=20 >=20 >>=20 >>> what linux distros do here? extra options to avoid > deleting the basic things like kernel and minimal userland utils? if you > happen to make way too broad package deletion. i don't think linux > sysadmins want it either. even if you consider linux moving faster and with > less seatbelts ("allow shit like that" (c) vermaden). it's not pkg fault it > does wipe system clean if you asked it. also, des@ reminded me that pkg > replaced older tracking system 12 years ago. yet, i see pkg production > versions being released just recently with a bug that user immediately > notices. it was fixed because oops humans make mistakes. but it would be a > horror if pkg does those things when it manages the entire system. granted, > you can always boot at least external media when any "nuclear" pkg update > comes out. this one wasn't but... and one could say that pkgbase is > extensively discussed everywhere. but we still have discussions like this > here. even fights. what if you miss all those? i never knew 32bit is on the > way out until i happened to randomly read that warning from kernel boot > log. there are number of those things in fbsd. happened earlier, happened > lately. maybe it's inevitable. were you scared to install new major version > like 5 or 13 right away because who knows what will happen? luckily there > are 2, sometimes 3 majors to choose from should some of them include rushed > in late changes that turned out to be buggy. it feels like it got worse > lately. i mean more changes, more breaks. i don't know why this isn't > confined to current or stable. those are annoying type of changes. > hopefully pkgbase will not be switched on before it's done. but pkg for > ports still has issues and it's now default package manager here. feels > like too much hassle. there are many changes, i mean. good, but extra fuzz. > drm for gpus, wifi driver changes, wifi adapter firmware loading changes. > all with somebody complaining that (s)he didn't know there was breaking > change. i don't have had reason to run -af and not checking either but if > you had habit of doing that, it would be similar to rm ~ catching the / > along too. unsure what the fix is. (userland) utils and kernel printing it > out to console? over longer period of time? i mean i could understand that > change was discussed "everywhere", meetings, mailing lists. it would still > be missed. if i make something, which i only tried once, and publish it, i > would never expect them to be aware of changes i make. because release > notes, changelogs, those don't get attention. and you can still miss stuff. > i once told that correct procedure is to check everything throughly and > then upgrade, but i have passed this myself often. and have gotten > "fallouts" too. in fbsd the only thing i would need to stand back, squint > and duck is when booting new current. when pkgbase gets out in installer, > i expect it to still have issues and i would rather stand back and watch > this "nuke" going off. because it does make radical changes. one of most > wtf is that now one needs to deal /etc in new ways. and if those differ > from mergemaster or etcupdate, it would make somebody mad. perhaps even > worse than i could. in my mind, changes are good. if they are reasonable. > and known. probably knowing is biggest issue. what if one misses all those > 10 different places? i never checked, does freebsd-update tell that pkgbase > is coming? does buildworld, maybe installworld tell that? that i actually > used and i don't see it. because those are like places where you see it. i > can't recall if ports warned of pkgng coming soon? i also prefer if those > messages would include plans and not final decisions to make a change. i > haven't tries pkgbase myself, maybe i will, maybe i don't. unsure what fix > is. maybe start putting things right into where everyone sees it. unsure. > and if i were you, whoever leads pkgbase initiative in "high castle" (it > does feel like this!), i would not let users delete base with -af. it's > rather unusual anyway and i don't think not deleting would get people as > mad as deleting stuff. i can't recall what was it, was it repo manager on > linux distro or something else but something wanted you to write whole > sentence, observing caps and so on. then it executed that irreversible > operation. in my systems, i've been configured things to ask date & times > when i really wanted to not do anything stupid. that would get somebody's > brain working and maybe they interrupt their autopilot mode if they didn't > actually want it. trust me, deleting freebsd-kernel, removing freebsd-bin, > pkg-bootstrap... isn't what you want to see, then it's too late. and yes, > add echos to installworld end and freebsd-update if it's not there already > because that's what people see >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> On August 7, 2025 1:21:32 AM GMT+03:00, vermaden=20 > wrote: >>>So You still do not understand ... >>> >>>The pkg(8) command works fine - its just NOT SUPPOSE to DESTROY most > of the FreeBSD Base System - because FreeBSD is not Linux to allow shit > like that ... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>Temat: Re: PKGBASE Removes FreeBSD Base System Feature >>>Data: 2025-08-07 0:13 >>>Nadawca: "Ceri Davies" <ceri@submonkey.net> >>>Adresat: "vermaden" <vermaden@interia.pl>;=20 >>>DW: FreeBSD-pkgbase@freebsd.org; freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org; > freebsd-current@freebsd.org; freebsd-stable@freebsd.org;=20 >>> >>> >>> >>>>> On 6 Aug 2025, at 22:54, vermaden wrote: >>>>>=20 >>>>> =EF=BB=BF >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> No, it has the same behaviour. >>>>>=20 >>>>> English is not my primary language so I will try to explain in > more >>>simple words as you probably did not understood. >>>>>=20 >>>>> NOPE. >>>>>=20 >>>>> It DOES NOT has the same behavior. >>>>=20 >>>> In each case it forcibly deletes all the packages from your system, >>>like you asked. >>>>=20 >>>> I understood you fine, I just disagree that this is a shocking > result >>>when you have specified the =E2=80=9Call=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9Cforce=E2= =80=9D flags. In fact > it is >>>exactly what that command is documented to do and therefore is very > far >>>from a violation of the principle of least astonishment. >>>>=20 >>>> Ceri >>>>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>> >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >=20 >=20 >=20