Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 12:10:10 -0500 From: Jeremy Messenger <mezz.freebsd@gmail.com> To: Kris Moore <kris@pcbsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: pkgng default schedule... registering a few reasons for rethinking the final implementation... Message-ID: <CADLFttcOfBvH6rpyjTQrV12mRBCy1VKDbJJ0aYZW1bLm154v4Q@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <50365F37.7040601@pcbsd.org> References: <1345739186.30848.YahooMailClassic@web111307.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <50365F37.7040601@pcbsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Kris Moore <kris@pcbsd.org> wrote: > 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/po= rtmanager/.sh scripts/find/pipes etc... to fix stuff. For instance, an upg= rade 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/portma= ster/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. Guys, please test it before you say anything. Otherwise it's going to be moved forward without you. > -- > Kris Moore > PC-BSD Software > iXsystems --=20 mezz.freebsd@gmail.com - mezz@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD GNOME Team http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/ - gnome@FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLFttcOfBvH6rpyjTQrV12mRBCy1VKDbJJ0aYZW1bLm154v4Q>