From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 23 16:50:02 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA067106564A; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 16:50:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@pcbsd.org) Received: from mail.iXsystems.com (newknight.ixsystems.com [206.40.55.70]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C2168FC08; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 16:50:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.iXsystems.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96D671BC4; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 09:50:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.iXsystems.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.ixsystems.com [127.0.0.1]) (maiad, port 10024) with ESMTP id 37993-09; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 09:50:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.182] (75-130-56-30.static.kgpt.tn.charter.com [75.130.56.30]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.iXsystems.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1206D1BC2; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 09:50:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <50365F37.7040601@pcbsd.org> Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 12:49:59 -0400 From: Kris Moore User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120621 Thunderbird/13.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Ports References: <1345739186.30848.YahooMailClassic@web111307.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <1345739186.30848.YahooMailClassic@web111307.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Subject: Re: pkgng default schedule... registering a few reasons for rethinking the final implementation... X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 16:50:02 -0000 On 08/23/2012 12:26, Jeffrey Bouquet wrote: > I am following with dread the planned implementation of the deprecation of /var/db/pkg as a package registry... I use each /var/db/pkg directory as a database into the port installation/status, using sed/grep/portmaster/portmanager/.sh scripts/find/pipes etc... to fix stuff. For instance, an upgrade py26 > py27. > cd /var/db/pkg > ls -lac | grep py26 > ls -lac | grep python > as the more simple example. > .... > With due respect to its developers and the persons who agree that > the package tools could be upgraded, the mandatory > usage of a front-end database to a file directory one > is here viewd as mutt-only-mbox, registry-and-bsod rather > than /etc/local/rc files, deprecation of sed/grep/find/locate/.sh/portmaster/portmanager as tools to fixup/upgrade the ports that are registered; > ... > I see concurrently too few tests on lower-end p2, p3 as to whether > pkg can run with lesser memory machines (routers...) (pfsense) > ... > I suspect stalling of successful frontends to bsd (pc-bsd, ghostbsd, > pfsense..) due to less-reliability, more-possibility of bugs.. > This is of some concern to me as well. A number of our utilities / scripts rely on checking /var/db/pkg as a means to test if a particular package is installed. This is often much faster than running the pkg_* commands, especially when we may be checking thousands of packages in a single run. It will be some work to adjust our utilities to using the various "pkg" commands now, but it can be done. What worries me is performance. If this is significantly slower, it may cause some issues on our end. -- Kris Moore PC-BSD Software iXsystems