From owner-freebsd-pkgbase@freebsd.org Mon Apr 18 20:02:12 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-pkgbase@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC9C8B13D91; Mon, 18 Apr 2016 20:02:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from slw@zxy.spb.ru) Received: from zxy.spb.ru (zxy.spb.ru [195.70.199.98]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98C101F6C; Mon, 18 Apr 2016 20:02:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from slw@zxy.spb.ru) Received: from slw by zxy.spb.ru with local (Exim 4.86 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1asFN6-0006y7-QP; Mon, 18 Apr 2016 23:02:12 +0300 Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 23:02:12 +0300 From: Slawa Olhovchenkov To: Glen Barber Cc: Nathan Whitehorn , lev@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-pkgbase@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8) Message-ID: <20160418200212.GA4841@zxy.spb.ru> 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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160418194010.GX1554@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: slw@zxy.spb.ru X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zxy.spb.ru); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-BeenThere: freebsd-pkgbase@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Packaging the FreeBSD base system." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 20:02:13 -0000 On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 07:40:10PM +0000, Glen Barber wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:21:28PM -0700, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: > > > > > > On 04/18/16 12:14, Glen Barber wrote: > > >On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:01:46PM -0700, Sean Fagan wrote: > > >>On Apr 18, 2016, at 11:52 AM, Lev Serebryakov wrote: > > >>>I understand, that maybe it is too late, but ARE YOU KIDDING?! 755 > > >>>packages?! WHY?! What are reasons and goals to split base in such > > >>>enormous number of packages? > > >>Just a guess, having done the same thing myself: it means that updates can be > > >>more targeted. > > >> > > >This is exactly the reason, which has been answered numerous times. > > > > > >Glen > > > > > > > That's a good reason -- and a very nice outcome of having base system > > packages -- but I worry that it may be going too far. The most granular > > updates would be if every file were its own package, which is obviously > > crazy, and so there is some middle ground. Needing to grab a whole new > > base.txz is probably too much (60 MB), but splitting that into even 6 or 7 > > pieces moves the updates to replacements with typical size (a few MB) that > > are no larger than typical package updates for ports. > > This granularity allows easy removal of things that may not be wanted > (such as *-debug*, *-profile*, etc.) on systems with little storage. On > one of my testing systems, I removed the tests packages and all debug > and profiling, and the number of base system packages is 383. Easy select from list of 1k items?! You kidding?