Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 12:36:52 -0500 From: "Sam Fourman Jr." <sfourman@gmail.com> To: kris@pcbsd.org Cc: Adam Vande More <amvandemore@gmail.com>, Kris Moore <kris@pcbsd.com>, John Hixson <jhixson@gmail.com>, ports@freebsd.org, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, "Dave Fourman\(Gmail\)" <dfourman@gmail.com>, Garrett Cooper <yanefbsd@gmail.com>, Matt Olander <matt@ixsystems.com>, Vanessa Kraus <vmkraus@gmail.com>, FreeBSD Current <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ports and PBIs Message-ID: <r2o11167f521004101036w9e2daa7coc837459203aa88b@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <49684.1270905510@pcbsd.org> References: <49684.1270905510@pcbsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 8:18 AM, <kris@pcbsd.org> wrote: > > > > > On Sat 10/04/10 3:35 AM , Garrett Cooper <yanefbsd@gmail.com> wrote: > > [...] > >> >> yes but there are still dependency problems if you want to install a >> single >> package and you installed all the previous ones a year ago. >> With PBIs each package is self standing, so you can install one >> and not worry if it requires a different version of some library >> to what you installed last year. > > If I'm understanding you correctly you're saying it's an issue when I do: > > pkg_add A B C > > # 1 year passes > > pkg_add D > > # D depends on A, B, C, of different revisions. pkg_add barfs because > it can't find the applications, etc. > > This is something that's been hashed over a number of times (a few of > which I've participated in in #bsdports). There needs to be a simple > update command which will handle the action of upgrading packages, > because there isn't a proper command that will do so today. > > Unless PBIs are self-contained entities which have their own sets of > dependent utilities and libraries, etc (which you weren't suggesting > in the sentence above), or install into a common location with > versioned directories (which is a pain in the ass and involves a lot > of hardcoded pains dealing with libtool files, libraries, etc -- been > there, done that with Gentoo Linux -- there are hack scripts written > to work around several possible hardcoded version issue, and there are > a handful), AFAIK there's nothing positive and new that PBIs can bring > to the table in this regard that can't be implemented in pkg_install > as-is, other than the point-click-install user-friendly interface. > > > > Incorrect. The difference is in complexity at install-time. Even if you > improve the package manager > > to better resolve and upgrade all related dependencies as a result of doi= ng > a firefox upgrade, the fact > > still remains that just to update one package, you may have to also updat= e a > TON of various packages > > / libraries, any of which may be critical to other applications on your > system. If just a single one of those > > things fails, you can end up breaking a lot of applications on your syste= m > or even your entire desktop. > > PBI system simplifies this process. Updating firefox, since its > self-contained, does NOT run the risk > > of borking anything else on the system. You don't need to work about libp= ng, > libjpeg, or some other seemingly > > trivial library (to the end user) causing a huge breakage for xorg, or > KDE/Gnome, etc. > > This in my opinion is the fatal flaw of pretty much every open-source sys= tem > out there right now. Something both > > windows & mac have recognized and dealt with. We instead try to write mor= e > and more complex package resolvers, > > while failing to address the main issue, that with such a complex chain o= f > dependencies for something as simple > > as upgrading firefox, it increases the chances exponentially that somethi= ng > will break and ruin your day / weekend. > > > >>> PBIs only comprise a small set of packages in FreeBSD; if my >>> understanding is correct based on a mirror referenced in pbidir.com, >>> the number is currently under 500~750 PBIs -- this is drastically >>> smaller than the number of binary packages produced by ports on a >>> regular basis for FreeBSD. >>> >>>> solution? well let all the developers develop working ports in >>>> progress in one place, give users like me a way to track these changes >>>> and install and test them... I think FreeBSD becomes a better place fo= r >>>> it. >>> >>> Packages are more of the answer IMO, not PBIs. PBIs are merely a >>> different set of contents and different means of delivering those >>> contents, and while I like the idea of point - click - install, I'm >>> not ready to create unnecessary complexity by having libraries rev'ed >>> according to what the maintainer A believes are correct, even though >>> maintainer B set it differently, and I'm not interested in sacrificing >>> disk space for this reason. If I wanted to use a packaging scheme like >>> this, I should be using Mac OSX as my primary operating system. >> >> well no-one is going to make you use PBIs > > Yes, but if I now have to waste more bandwidth and disk space > installing packages, why shouldn't I go to another operating system? > Switching over to PBIs will reel in more desktop and entry-level > sysadmins, etc, but I fear that it will isolate folks in the embedded > market as well as several more seasoned users because of the > implications involved with the extra bandwidth requirement and > footprint. > > This gave me a bit of a chuckle. PBI would not be intended as a replaceme= nt > for ports, > rather a utilizing of ports in such a way that we can start building > self-contained, stand-alone > binaries for end-users and those of us who value their time more than a f= ew > MB of disk space. > Considering at every BSD conference it seems that the majority of develop= ers > are running Mac > laptops, it would seem that even some developers agree with the principle= , > they just aren't doing > it on FreeBSD. :) > I also, noticed this, and a several years back I was a Newcomer to FreeBSD I was at BSDCan, and I wondered, why are all the developers using OSX? it was then that I knew,that if we could get PC-BSD to the point where the FreeBSD developers CHOSE to use it over say OSX, we would REALLY help FreeBSD as a whole. it is for this exact reason, I believe PBI's should be merged in with the ports tree in some fashion. I do have a question, assuming PBI's were merged officially into the FreeBSD ports tree, say I had PostgreSQL Server installed, via PBI. then I wanted to tweak a setting so I: cd /usr/ports/databases/postgresql84-server/ && make deinstall clean would the PBI at this point be removed? or no because it is self contained? > However for my more hard-core friends, nothing stopping you from running > your own ports down > the road, more power to ya! For doing something like embedded work or=A0 = a > server this makes total > sense and I think it is a huge positive for FreeBSD, no reason to trash t= hat > or break it in any way. > For the other 99.9% of society who want something "that just works" for > day-to-day computing, > something like PBI is very attractive. It would be great to have an OS th= at > offers best of both worlds. > > -- > Kris Moore > > > > > > ________________________________ > Message sent via Atmail Open - http://atmail.org/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?r2o11167f521004101036w9e2daa7coc837459203aa88b>