Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2025 09:19:23 -0400 From: Matteo Riondato <matteo@FreeBSD.org> To: Lexi Winter <ivy@freebsd.org> Cc: Ronald Klop <ronald-lists@klop.ws>, current@freebsd.org, pkgbase@freebsd.org Subject: Re: should FreeBSD-dhclient depend on FreeBSD-resolvconf? Message-ID: <3E63F63B-0C90-43E2-BF55-30310B7599D3@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <aO-ZME6G4MbN-0c6@amaryllis.le-fay.org> References: <324231230.147694.1760527890049@localhost> <aO-QglIdge2VetmF@amaryllis.le-fay.org> <43B68BB6-02FA-470E-A8C5-99D15E3707D7@FreeBSD.org> <aO-TUeDnFPOS6Pds@amaryllis.le-fay.org> <89861E7A-64C7-47CB-89F6-A93AB14813FF@FreeBSD.org> <aO-ZME6G4MbN-0c6@amaryllis.le-fay.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
> On Oct 15, 2025, at 8:53 AM, Lexi Winter <ivy@freebsd.org> wrote:
>
> Matteo Riondato wrote in <89861E7A-64C7-47CB-89F6-A93AB14813FF@FreeBSD.org>:
>>> On Oct 15, 2025, at 8:28 AM, Lexi Winter <ivy@freebsd.org> wrote:
>
>>> "minimal-jail" is "minimal" without software that doesn't work in jails.
>>> dhclient obviously works in jails, but i ommitted it since i thought it
>>> was extremely uncommon to use dhclient in a jail. but if this is more
>>> common than i thought, we can add it.
>>
>> It seems you had a definition ("'minimal-jail’ is all minus {what
>> doesn’t work in a jail}” AND “is the minimal supported") but ignored
>> it for dhclient. That makes the definition not valid anymore.
>
> yes, your logic is very clever, but i am more interested in actionable
> changes we can make to improve the system for users.
Having clear documentation of what these meta-packages should/must/are expected include is an actionable change that improves the system for users: it clarifies to the users what to expect when they install the meta-packages, and clarifies to developers when to add/remove packages to/from the meta-packages.
>> It also seem that (before the change), dhclient in jails would not
>> have been supported (as ‘“minimal’ is the *minimal supported*
>> configuration”, quote yours, emphasis mine), which would have been
>> bizarre.
>
> huh? i never said dhclient in a jail is not supported.
>
> "minimal supported configuration" means that for a basic installation of
> FreeBSD in a multi-user configuration, these are the packages you need
> to install.
> it doesn't mean you can't install any other packages. that
> would obviously be absurd.
Gotcha, I misunderstood that.
But then, what does “minimal supported” mean, i.e., what role does “supported” play?
If one removes a package (e.g., dhclient), is this configuration not supported?
You are using terms that seem not well defined: what’s a *basic* (earlier you used the term “standard”…are these equivalent terms?) installation of FreeBSD in a multi-user configuration? Is there a list of packages that, when installed, create a basic (or a standard) installation? How did we arrive to this list? Is it self-defined. e.g., “the packages in minimal define what a basic/standard FreeBSD installation in a multi-user configuration is”?
I fear some of the meta-packages may become either a kitchen sink or “too minimal”, if we don’t define exactly what each should accomplish.
Thanks,
Matteo
help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3E63F63B-0C90-43E2-BF55-30310B7599D3>