From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Apr 10 08:45:50 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6D7A106564A; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 08:45:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julianelischer@gmail.com) Received: from mail-vw0-f54.google.com (mail-vw0-f54.google.com [209.85.212.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 755C28FC19; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 08:45:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: by vws17 with SMTP id 17so2210971vws.13 for ; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 01:45:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=vm7RTFZwCrSYxJRV0w9FU/v+HMq6m/cUskRy9JfLDL0=; b=GFVUHW1DpsAn5yo8iBXronkeiSUlcz0ja+c+pE7yonKc6w6yjCa6oAfcSBZDFY6RUM ZqP4yjKTt+hIeX/wzO6JRP9J7z1Hjai2l6XQZrubjRqkCgDk06AAEBpv6EbhhyIOp4Kq DN05LA230D4tgm37yTUI+Llo5sy4QHkjcJ2zk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=nzSw2fif0oeDBD7y85ivC0JHD3WXeKqt47agefkCfHyU3tib/G4PPAF6FGnsSpheOg 5DN7/oAORpqAdxQ9dUjuKPUxhPOS9KxBPs0rctq7Qcqva+jLsHKeHhQTewSYy3MpPu2t nAYpnbzm9XKJ11DscmVVtATT/c2nmnhr/5T7s= Received: by 10.220.61.12 with SMTP id r12mr650261vch.139.1270889149149; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 01:45:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from julian-mac.elischer.org (h-67-100-89-137.snfccasy.static.covad.net [67.100.89.137]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 29sm45147690vws.5.2010.04.10.01.45.46 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 10 Apr 2010 01:45:48 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Julian Elischer Message-ID: <4BC03ABA.6090309@elischer.org> Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 01:45:46 -0700 From: Julian Elischer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X 10.4; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Garrett Cooper References: <4BBFD502.1010507@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 11:26:50 +0000 Cc: Adam Vande More , Kris Moore , John Hixson , ports@freebsd.org, "Sam Fourman Jr." , "Dave Fourman\(Gmail\)" , Matt Olander , Vanessa Kraus , FreeBSD Current Subject: Re: ports and PBIs X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 08:45:51 -0000 On 4/10/10 12:20 AM, Garrett Cooper wrote: > On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Sam Fourman Jr. wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 10:11 PM, Adam Vande More wrote: >>> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 8:31 PM, Julian Elischer wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Alfred Perlstein , Matt at ix systems Kris (Mr PBI), some >>>> others and I, felt that these ideas seemed to make some sense >>>> and so I put them here for comment. >>>> >>>> >>> FWIW, when I see these discussions I'm always left wondering what's the bad >>> part? I do think there are problems, but there doesn't seem to be a clear >>> defined set of what is wrong. IMO, there should be a defined set of goals >>> to judge possible implementations against. >> >> >> Let me start by saying FreeBSD ports is by far the best system I have >> used to date. >> but as good as it is, there is room for improvement. >> >> Being a FreeBSD user now for many years, one thing I think would be nice is: >> being able to have easier access to development ports( Masked ports >> kinda like Gentoo). > > Masking ports and packages in general introduces all sorts of fun new > complexity for end users as well as maintainers. The last time I used > Gentoo (which was only a matter of months ago), a lot portage packages > were still masked even though they've been stable for months, years, > etc. This is very annoying for me as an end-user because bug blah > could be fixed in a later release but in order to unmask the pieces > for version blah, I had to unmask 10~15 other `unstable packages', > which greatly increased the chance of instability on my system (this > was particularly the case back several years ago, but Gentoo has > become more conservative over the years, and appears to be approaching > some level of equilibrium with Fedora, Ubuntu, etc in terms of > releases and package versioning). > >> right now is a GREAT example, currently there are new Gnome ,KDE and Xorg. >> these are all MAJOR ports,dependencies run deeper and deeper with every release. >> there can never be enough testing...but they all exist in random >> subversion servers around the web... > > ports isn't going to solve this. Post the Xorg modularization (which > needed to occur anyhow because Xorg and Xfree86 before that was were > monolithic beasts), I personally don't see that change in the amount > of flux on a quarterly cycle, and the number of packages I install > today isn't that much greater than back 6 years ago when I started > using FreeBSD. So, while there might be some claim here to note, I > think it's mostly exaggerated. > >> I would very much like to help test these Major ports, but installing >> them is a pain. >> there should be some sort of overlay system in place, so I can just >> build the development ports >> after agreeing to a few well placed warnings of course. and Well if I >> hose my system all to hell.. >> well then I could just click on a bunch of PBI's and I am back in business... > > Ok, apart from the interface (click a PBI, and magically you have > packages installed)... how is this really different from binary > packages? Have you tried installing binary packages lately via > pkg_add? If not, I'd give it a shot instead of installing from ports. yes but there are still dependency problems if you want to install a single package and you installed all the previous ones a year ago. With PBIs each package is self standing, so you can install one and not worry if it requires a different version of some library to what you installed last year. > >> better still, make the development ports a PBI, I am just thinking out >> loud here,but that may work, toughts? >> >> one could say I could use merge scripts like marcusmerge for example, >> or use Virtualbox... >> but for large ports like Xorg and gnome or KDE, virtualbox doesn't cut it yet... >> thinks like Nvidia Video cards, multiple monitors, USB devices, and >> whatnot do not work on virtual box.. >> PBI's for development ports, with all the dependencies, wrapped in one package. > > Ok, well here's the thing. Instead of having N shared dependencies and > libraries in /usr/local/lib, you'd have N**2 shared dependencies and > libraries in each and every package. Now, let's look at > $ ls -l irssi-0.8.14_1.tbz ~/Downloads/Irssi0.8.14_1-PV0.pbi > -rw-r--r-- 1 gcooper gcooper 6856203 Apr 10 00:05 > /usr/home/gcooper/Downloads/Irssi0.8.14_1-PV0.pbi > -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 517442 Apr 10 00:07 irssi-0.8.14_1.tbz > > The .tbz file is a file created with pkg_create -b, and the other file > is the PBI I pulled off of http://www.pbidir.com/bt/download/210/2079 > . Big difference in size (13.25 fold difference). Yes but that is a worst case thing. We are talking about making a system where the PBIs contain all the libraries needed but that only some of them are installed, when there is not already the same one (i.e. identical) installed by a previous PBI. so if you installed, say, 20 PBI from the same 'set' you woudl only be installing one copy of the libraries that > > PBIs only comprise a small set of packages in FreeBSD; if my > understanding is correct based on a mirror referenced in pbidir.com, > the number is currently under 500~750 PBIs -- this is drastically > smaller than the number of binary packages produced by ports on a > regular basis for FreeBSD. > >> solution? well let all the developers develop working ports in >> progress in one place, give users like me a way to track these changes >> and install and test them... I think FreeBSD becomes a better place for it. > > Packages are more of the answer IMO, not PBIs. PBIs are merely a > different set of contents and different means of delivering those > contents, and while I like the idea of point - click - install, I'm > not ready to create unnecessary complexity by having libraries rev'ed > according to what the maintainer A believes are correct, even though > maintainer B set it differently, and I'm not interested in sacrificing > disk space for this reason. If I wanted to use a packaging scheme like > this, I should be using Mac OSX as my primary operating system. well no-one is going to make you use PBIs > > Thanks, > -Garrett > > PS Don't let this discourage you though in considering the entry-level > user case. I'm just apparently more insane than some folks (not as > insane as some others though), and I just don't believe in this > ideology because things are fine for me as-is.