From nobody Fri Aug 8 19:36:49 2025 X-Original-To: freebsd-pkgbase@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4bzDn548G0z64RhD; Fri, 08 Aug 2025 19:36:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marquis@roble.com) Received: from mx5.roble.com (mx5.roble.com [209.237.23.5]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mx5.roble.com", Issuer "mx5.roble.com" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4bzDn462Nmz3M08; Fri, 08 Aug 2025 19:36:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marquis@roble.com) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=roble.com header.s=rs060402 header.b=W5+jfHhR; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of marquis@roble.com designates 209.237.23.5 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=marquis@roble.com; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=roble.com Received: from roble.com (roble.com [209.237.23.50]) by mx5.roble.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3397D412A6; Fri, 08 Aug 2025 12:36:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=roble.com; s=rs060402; t=1754681809; bh=pFJrN2zYY2RgS4ROln5JeV94BQke3SaMc1hgqfyozP0=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=W5+jfHhR5sYkew9H+rbmfrYf+eXFzw8D2mV+r5AKIZFh6D2TrC4NYDOPjGOaLjB9v GDEcIoAlU3XeZcYy9zYNiQFbkCRiI2uQEmDY+kH9ZczeDpXpn9jTanuAGjPA1hoKEV V0SLVXGY9R2f46Wns/ygV4cGeh/s7KB7/G6K9bLs= Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2025 12:36:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Roger Marquis To: freebsd-pkgbase@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PKGBASE Removes FreeBSD Base System Feature In-Reply-To: <0CC405ED-BCFC-41AD-A487-5261421BF8A6@FreeBSD.org> Message-ID: References: <864iui3si5.fsf@ltc.des.dev> <86pld62alk.fsf@ltc.des.dev> <0CC405ED-BCFC-41AD-A487-5261421BF8A6@FreeBSD.org> List-Id: Packaging the FreeBSD base system List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-pkgbase List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-pkgbase@FreeBSD.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-3.78 / 15.00]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.98)[-0.978]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[roble.com,none]; ONCE_RECEIVED(0.20)[]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[roble.com:s=rs060402]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:209.237.23.0/24]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[roble.com:+]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; MISSING_XM_UA(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:17403, ipnet:209.237.0.0/18, country:US]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; MLMMJ_DEST(0.00)[freebsd-current@freebsd.org,freebsd-pkgbase@freebsd.org]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROMTLD(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+] X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4bzDn462Nmz3M08 X-Spamd-Bar: --- David Chisnall wrote: > Let?s remember the thing that started this entire thread: `pkg delete -af` > This is an *incredibly* stupid thing to do. Long before pkg came along, While there are some scenarios where 'delete -af' can be useful, anyone using these flags should at least know their implications. As a rational for separate pkgbase commands, OTOH, this really seems like a straw man. Dimitry Andric wrote: >I'm one of the people that regularly runs `pkg delete -af`, even with >`-y` added. :) That said, I only use this when I have co mpletely >rebuilt a ports collection with poudriere against a newer base jail, and >then I'd like to start completely from scratc h with freshly installed >packages. This also clears out any unnecessary non-leaf packages there >were pulled in by a previous pa ckage build. > >Obviously that is an outlier scenario! It is now but with the incorporation of base packages and repos it could be much more common. For example, to install a distroless jail. If 'pkg install apache24' would install ONLY necessary package from ports AND base the disk utilization and maintenance overhead would be a fraction of what it is currently. This would bring FreeBSD at least close to the functionality of Linux containers and kubernetes. Tomek CEDRO wrote: > I can see that "base" will not be coherent for everyone anymore. If > ports start depending on base packages then circular dependencies will > arise and this will be a Linux-like-mess Except Linux' packaged base isn't a mess, it just works. Thse who are lucky enough to work in FreeBSD-only environments don't seem to realize that FreeBSD's monolithic base is one of the biggest reasons for its dramatic loss of market share over the past few decades. The market has also already spoken on utilities too, and nobody is asking for separate aptbase or yumbase commands. Those who want *base commands can easily script them and 'make package'. The rest of us have been and will continue to be best served by a single 'pkg' command that is demonstrably more future-proof. IMO, Roger Marquis