Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 10:10:11 -0553.75 From: "William A. Mahaffey III" <wam@hiwaay.net> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Removing documentation Message-ID: <56BE0299.6080708@hiwaay.net> In-Reply-To: <56BDFBE3.7050709@FreeBSD.org> References: <56B754A8.3030605@marino.st> <56BCE01D.4010701@FreeBSD.org> <56BCE218.40403@marino.st> <CA%2BE3k93iYs1p5Je-AKwJ7pVLdzYgSXWqb4P0XoD0oTJhrkt==Q@mail.gmail.com> <56BCEC5F.4020007@marino.st> <CA%2BE3k930YfN=LADkE7X4a82RSPZ-MSeKkC=U_J8kKDiy6vot=w@mail.gmail.com> <56BDF2A3.9030100@ohlste.in> <56BDFBE3.7050709@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 02/12/16 09:42, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> On 12/02/2016 14:56, Jim Ohlstein wrote:
>> This is a good point. I still don't understand why pkg(8) is not in the
>> base (though I imagine there's a reason and it takes less than a minute
>> to install). There can't be many users who install a base system and use
>> it without a single additional piece of software. However, for my $0.02,
>> that is the only change I'd make to base at this point with respect to
>> package management, aside from my pkg(8) wishlist. As an aside, and
>> fwiw, unless there is a non-GPL'd Ada compiler out there, we won't see
>> Ada or any Ada-based binaries in base, even if Synth turns out to be the
>> best thing since sliced bread.
> The primary reason pkg(8) is not in base is to decouple it from the
> FreeBSD release timescale. Given the promises about API/ABI stability
> over a major release branch, development of pkg(8) would be forced to
> slow to a crawl.
>
> pkg(8) still has a lot of changes yet to be realized, both in its own
> code, and in the code of both the ports and the base system, and in
> adjunct software like poudriere or indeed, synth, so it is likely to
> remain a 'port' for some time to come. It is not completely
> inconceivable though that at some future point, pkg(8) will have matured
> into stability and require little further development, in which case,
> importing it to base would be a natural next move.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Matthew
There was a thread a month or 2 back that mentioned adopting the pkg
'package format' for binary base packages. This would at least unify
base & userland binaries under 1 package management system (& I *love*
freebsd-update, BTW, *NO* aspersions being cast here). As I understand
things, there would be separate repo's for base (obviously) & userland,
but 1 unified format/package-manager. For those wanting to compile
either base or userland themselves, they still could, since pkg is
reasonably 'port' aware (& hopefuly could be made /usr/src aware as
well), & they could use whatever src-base/port management tools they
wanted. I definitely agree that a well integrated ability to possibly
mix locally compiled stuff w/ repo-binaries is quite desirable in many
scenarios & a nice advantage for FreeBSD. $0.02 from the (*very*) cheap
seats, no more, no less ....
--
William A. Mahaffey III
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"The M1 Garand is without doubt the finest implement of war
ever devised by man."
-- Gen. George S. Patton Jr.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?56BE0299.6080708>