From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 10 20:02:28 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C5D716A4CE for ; Tue, 10 May 2005 20:02:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: from 62-15-211-204.inversas.jazztel.es (62-15-211-204.inversas.jazztel.es [62.15.211.204]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E146543D5F for ; Tue, 10 May 2005 20:02:26 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from josemi@freebsd.jazztel.es) Received: from orion.redesjm.local (orion.redesjm.local [192.168.254.16]) j4AK2OSp002912; Tue, 10 May 2005 22:02:24 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from josemi@freebsd.jazztel.es) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by orion.redesjm.local (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id j4AK2MWu092955; Tue, 10 May 2005 22:02:22 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from josemi@freebsd.jazztel.es) X-Authentication-Warning: orion.redesjm.local: josemi set sender to josemi@freebsd.jazztel.es using -f From: Jose M Rodriguez Organization: Redes JM To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 22:02:21 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.8 References: <20050509114410.GA2184@uk.tiscali.com> <1115735657.20796.15.camel@tomcat.kitchenlab.org> <20050510193535.GA214@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> In-Reply-To: <20050510193535.GA214@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200505102202.21970.josemi@freebsd.jazztel.es> X-AntiVirus: checked by AntiVir Milter (version: 1.1.0-3; AVE: 6.30.0.12; VDF: 6.30.0.169; host: antares.redesjm.local) cc: Peter Jeremy cc: Brian Candler Subject: Re: Packaging of base system X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 20:02:28 -0000 El Martes, 10 de Mayo de 2005 21:35, Peter Jeremy escribi=F3: > Overall, I think that packaging the base system is a good idea for > end-users. In theory, it means that upgrades can be handled by a > wrapper around portupgrade and the pkg_* tools can be used to verify > system consistency. OTOH, I'm not sure that it is of much benefit to > developers - unless you replace "make world" with portupgrade, the > base system package information will be out-of-date following the > first installworld. It might be useful asking for opinions in some > of the "end user" lists as well as here. > > On Tue, 2005-May-10 07:34:16 -0700, Bruce A. Mah wrote: > >Honestly I'm not sure if I like this idea or not. My most recent > >experience with a fully packaged system is with RH/FC Linux > >distributions and many times I feel like I'm in a twisty little maze > > of RPMs, all different. You seem to be proposing a more > > coarse-grained packaging, which I think is more workable. > > OTOH, Solaris and Tru64 are fully packaged and this seems to work - > though both are (probably too) fine grained. I suspect that fine > grained makes the dependencies easier to manage, but in the case of > both Solaris and Tru64, working out whether you want a particular > package or not is virtually impossible. If you do go the > fine-grained approach, it may be worthwhile having a group of > "dependency" packages that are gathered in a section headed "you > probably don't want to individually select these packages - they will > be installed > automatically if required". > =46or the packaging problem (not the update), take a look into: http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/distrib/sets/ =2D- josemi