From owner-freebsd-pkgbase@freebsd.org Sun Mar 6 20:54:14 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 5D574AC265A for ; Sun, 6 Mar 2016 20:54:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gjb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206c::16:87]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4207A2EE; Sun, 6 Mar 2016 20:54:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gjb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from FreeBSD.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206c::16:87]) by freefall.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C360A1C3D; Sun, 6 Mar 2016 20:54:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gjb@FreeBSD.org) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2016 20:54:11 +0000 From: Glen Barber To: Matthew Seaman Cc: freebsd-pkgbase@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8) Message-ID: <20160306205411.GB77554@FreeBSD.org> References: <20160302235429.GD75641@FreeBSD.org> <22232.56734.691784.696540@khavrinen.csail.mit.edu> <20160304010949.GC48568@FreeBSD.org> <56D94384.5030901@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="8GpibOaaTibBMecb" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <56D94384.5030901@FreeBSD.org> X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 11.0-CURRENT amd64 X-SCUD-Definition: Sudden Completely Unexpected Dataloss X-SULE-Definition: Sudden Unexpected Learning Event X-PEKBAC-Definition: Problem Exists, Keyboard Between Admin/Computer User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) 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: Sun, 06 Mar 2016 20:54:14 -0000 --8GpibOaaTibBMecb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sorry, missed this reply. On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 08:12:52AM +0000, Matthew Seaman wrote: > On 04/03/2016 01:09, Glen Barber wrote: > >> I was prepared to freak out at this, but with half the packages > >> > consisting of debugging symbols for binaries that ship stripped in > >> > 10.x anyway (so most users would never need nor install those > >> > packages), the number isn't so unreasonable. I get 531 non-"-debug-" > >> > packages here, which is still more than I'd like but tolerable given > >> > how many of them will never be installed. (Could some of those > >> > library packages be consolidated? >=20 > > This was intentional. If, for example, there is a libxo bug that > > requires an EN or SA, we do not want the binary upgrade to exceed more > > than required. >=20 > Bapt's presentation at BSDCan last year explained the reasoning behind > how the base was divided up into packages. He said at the time that it > was impossible to do in a way that wouldn't get complaints from someone, > so he opted for maximum flexibility -- meaning a lot of fine-grained > packages plus a heirarchy of meta-packages to make it easy to install > and manage package sets in commonly used combinations. >=20 This is correct. > So, for instance, there might be a 'FreeBSD-debug' that would depend on > 'FreeBSD-library-debug', 'FreeBSD-application-debug' etc. and > 'FreeBSD-library-debug' would depend on the individual > 'FreeBSD-libfoo-debug' packages that actually install the symbol files. > (So you could strip all the debug symbols from your install by 'pkg > delete -fR FreeBSD-debug') >=20 > I'm not seeing any of those meta packages in the base repo built > following Glen's instructions -- is there some other step necessary to > generate them? >=20 Meta packages are still being thought out, and not yet implemented. The problem I ran into last time I tried creating a meta package including the minimal set of packages required (FreeBSD-runtime, FreeBSD-kernel and FreeBSD-clibs) was that I could not see a way to update one of them without adversely affecting behavior. If I recall correctly, updating the PKG_VERSION for FreeBSD-runtime (to see what would happen when issuing an EN or SA) propagated "what was to be upgraded" in a way I did not expect, so all packages part of the meta package were updated. That is, if I recall correctly. Note, this predates the pkg(8) patch for shlib tracking, so may not be an issue any longer. Glen --8GpibOaaTibBMecb Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJW3JjzAAoJEAMUWKVHj+KTUbQP/3B/kV2hVa43GJu2kjOVkJEE FORG4xfBLw6OoX6zZM6P3krpaeqOxBuEZCP99oJe81qFYqqm/QXS1Gn4HIoIy30h yJgNE1bupG7/8nztDqrWkFyFSd+EWjoUOF8h7YHzISqD3RKEKqvPnzBqplTq+cvT TKVWwOgOpfwDvUoI6khxlCfFHp/5qXF2ph1BUppQi4iAQEPUYSilUZ/DIcCXmoQU BHSLLy5NcsQkpGGcDM9sXdD43+gpH6BztweyLA279PYrwNbxEuolFY9nQuHWgKna KOOKpMbmKOsT+J0KIgK/Bl7qfcGJq51ZxPLhMKKhP2TvFr7tb+Ga+bPFFHkut7uu DU4mxW+3ps/ZW8fPZkyUQQKEPDB/qydN27tfhPqGMZLeqifOmiIN0YBcYvreZhP4 1NsGLH4/xboTPqA9UTZVwcnjA6u+79IZKMKzsss+LHkbSMeQkMeR1iCOLNgabofU HvjchLnLU98puEDnIsxKQdscdxd9CbTk2zvqdAp2rSOO3TmTMQnv02gAgpLPnceN cwChNhWn0ckd7QCelc00T7nWixGxRDszsCD5Uq74b2BK9aOQQr6pn0YnY+47Mo/A vhoyWSrAhEkjNf5NpK/1QfI1E1MRZJ51GxtCjm75uSDg0w8UvB/HIIBkkXyqYWFp z8Khzbp+J67lbjJfTkpB =K/Ww -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --8GpibOaaTibBMecb--