Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 08:59:46 +0100 From: Big Lebowski <spankthespam@gmail.com> To: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> Cc: freebsd-ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [FreeBSD-Ports-Announce] Time to bid farewell to the old pkg_ tools Message-ID: <CAHcXP%2Be1orionpYmyTWweC02mqU8B1FzZV=T4BEmdyekN%2BJxuA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <52F32F7C.2030601@infracaninophile.co.uk> References: <201402052202.s15M2Lha059200@fire.js.berklix.net> <52F2C0C8.5010203@gmx.de> <CAN6yY1uyXNp_c4PruKM89S9g0Y0QAs02cu5Z-dx3oSg1yZC19Q@mail.gmail.com> <52F32F7C.2030601@infracaninophile.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 7:45 AM, Matthew Seaman < m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> wrote: > On 05/02/2014 23:57, Kevin Oberman wrote: > > 1. The ports/packages system is not total crap. In fact, at the time jkh > > started it, it was far superior to any tool available. > > When I first encountered the ports, way back in 1998 or so, I was > completely mind-blown that something so fantastic could exist. Yes, it > was revolutionary at the time and right where FreeBSD should be -- > leading the rest of the world with great innovations. > > However, things have changed in the last 16 years. Development of the > ports as a global concept has been resting on its laurels a bit, and the > rest of the world has caught up, and indeed overtaken. Partly that was > due to the mindset of seeing binary packages as a second-class thing; > partly due to the old pkg_tools not providing the scope to implement > innovative features; partly due to pkg_tools being part of the FreeBSD > base, so impossible to update over reasonable timescales due to the > requirement to support older RELEASE branches. > > pkg(8) addresses those problems, and I hope will do so for at least the > next decade. > > > 5. The introduction of pkgng could have really been handled better and > that > > probably increased the negative feelings about it. It was also a bit > before > > it was really ready. It still lacks a few features I feel are quite > > important, but they were also missing from the old system. > > I don't think it's possible to make a change of this magnitude without > upsetting anyone. We have been getting a lot of feedack on the lines of > 'Wow! This is great. When can we have feature XYZ?' to which we > frequently have to reply that XYZ can't be implemented without breaking > compatibility with pkg_tools. Like sub-packages. > > I'd be interested to hear what features you think are missing. We will > implement anything (eventually...) that there is demand for and that is > technically feasible, and that fits with the overall concept of what we > think a packaging system should do. There's a number of ideas in the > github issue list already (usually tagged with 'longterm' or 'thinking') > and we are happy for people to add to that, or to discuss ideas -- the > freebsd-pkg@ list is a good place for that. > The ability to install certain package version, instead of installing simply the latest one. Please, please, pretty please! :) B. > > Cheers, > > Matthew > > -- > Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. > > PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey > JID: matthew@infracaninophile.co.uk > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAHcXP%2Be1orionpYmyTWweC02mqU8B1FzZV=T4BEmdyekN%2BJxuA>