From owner-freebsd-pkgbase@freebsd.org Mon Apr 18 21:48:27 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 85220B13B9B; Mon, 18 Apr 2016 21:48:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from slw@zxy.spb.ru) Received: from zxy.spb.ru (zxy.spb.ru [195.70.199.98]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45F8E109B; Mon, 18 Apr 2016 21:48:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from slw@zxy.spb.ru) Received: from slw by zxy.spb.ru with local (Exim 4.86 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1asH1x-0009fO-Ax; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 00:48:29 +0300 Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 00:48:29 +0300 From: Slawa Olhovchenkov To: Nathan Whitehorn Cc: Glen Barber , Sean Fagan , lev@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-pkgbase@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8) Message-ID: <20160418214829.GD6614@zxy.spb.ru> References: <20160302235429.GD75641@FreeBSD.org> <57152CE5.5050500@FreeBSD.org> <9D4B9C8B-41D7-42BC-B436-D23EFFF60261@ixsystems.com> <20160418191425.GW1554@FreeBSD.org> <571533B8.6090109@freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <571533B8.6090109@freebsd.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: slw@zxy.spb.ru X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zxy.spb.ru); SAEximRunCond expanded to false 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: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 21:48:27 -0000 On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:21:28PM -0700, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: > > > On 04/18/16 12:14, Glen Barber wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:01:46PM -0700, Sean Fagan wrote: > >> On Apr 18, 2016, at 11:52 AM, Lev Serebryakov wrote: > >>> I understand, that maybe it is too late, but ARE YOU KIDDING?! 755 > >>> packages?! WHY?! What are reasons and goals to split base in such > >>> enormous number of packages? > >> Just a guess, having done the same thing myself: it means that updates can be > >> more targeted. > >> > > This is exactly the reason, which has been answered numerous times. > > > > Glen > > > > That's a good reason -- and a very nice outcome of having base system > packages -- but I worry that it may be going too far. The most granular > updates would be if every file were its own package, which is obviously Allowing to have one file in multiple packages may be solution: base-11.0.txz have /usr/libexec/sendmail/sendmail base-11.0-p1.txz depends on base-11.0.txz and contains just single /usr/libexec/sendmail/sendmail -- security update. This packages must be installed together and presents /usr/libexec/sendmail/sendmail in both must not be error. > crazy, and so there is some middle ground. Needing to grab a whole new > base.txz is probably too much (60 MB), but splitting that into even 6 or > 7 pieces moves the updates to replacements with typical size (a few MB) > that are no larger than typical package updates for ports. > -Nathan