Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002 19:08:22 -0700 From: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com> To: Dan Moschuk <dan@freebsd.org> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Package system flaws? Message-ID: <3D27A296.D58FB4B4@softweyr.com> References: <20020706220511.GA88651@scoobysnax.jaded.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dan Moschuk wrote:
>
> I've been doing some thinking lately about our ports system versus what
> other systems have adopted and was curious as to what people think on
> the subject? What does FreeBSD do well?
FreeBSD does well at a number of important things:
o Provides a framework for porting applications to FreeBSD. Don't belittle
this point, the ports collection is a huge advantage.
o Provides dependency checking that pretty much works. This is certainly
far better than RPMs, for instance, and a LOT better than doing it
manually.
o Provides the ability to wrap a "port" that has been built into a binary
"package," and the associated tools to install and deinstall packages.
The dependency checking mechanism works as well for packages as it does
for ports, modulo a few nits like having packages on multiple CD-ROMs
and only one CD-ROM drive.
o The ports team and the FreeBSD infrastructure provide a very up-to-date
collection of ports and pre-compiled packages. This is especially
valuable for those who use binary packages and need critical security
updates for them in a timely manner.
> Where can we improve?
In all of the above areas, plus all the ones we haven't addressed yet.
Some of the areas are extensions to problems we have with binary system
distributions, some are unique to the ports/packages system. The issue
of generational control of system configurations bites every OS; having
nearly 9,000 "free" applications magnifies the problem significantly.
Maintaining configuration files through the installation and de-
installation of binary ports is a challenge we've not yet risen to.
> How does it rate against the umpteen Linux flavours?
Hard to say, because the upteen Linux flavors have umpteen different ways
of addressing the same problem. They have different tool sets, such as
RPMs and dpkg/apt-get, they have different staff levels dedicated to
porting traditional UNIX applications and such, and they have different
ways to of communicating such to their users. Some lower-end Linux
distros do none of the above, relying on you the user to obtain whatever
applications you want via your own means.
> I'm not sure that this classifies as an architectual discussion (for now)
> so if you feel its appropriate please feel free to redirect to ports@.
I'd certainly like to see it evolve into an architectural discussion, even
if all it accomplishes is to layout the work that needs to be done and
provide some sort of road map of what the next step or two might be. I
see a lot of interest in improving our application packaging and building
tools, but no concrete idea of what to improve next.
I'm more interested in the binary package side personally, a holdover
from a previous professional involvement in this area. I have a number
of ideas for things that could be improved in relatively small projects
if someone wants to discuss those with me.
For the ports building infrastructure, I lack enough knowlege about the
ports infrastructure to be able to contribute meaningfully, but I am sure
the portsmgr team and all active ports maintainers are interested in any
such discussion.
Please, anyone who is interested in this aspect of FreeBSD, read the
archives to learn about the issues that have been brought up in the past,
think a bit, and start a discussion.
--
"Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?"
Wes Peters Softweyr LLC
wes@softweyr.com http://softweyr.com/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3D27A296.D58FB4B4>