On 8 Mar 2016, at 15:14, Slawa Olhovchenkov <s...@zxy.spb.ru> wrote:
> Yes, I undertund this. But what profit of this? Addtional size is
> small, many small packages is bad. We already have expirense with
> spliting Xorg to many small packages -- no profit of this.

The X.org case is similar, but not quite the same.  The X.org split was to ease 
development, but came at a cost of packaging because you almost always want all 
of X (or, at least, most of it - there are a few things such as Xephyr that 
many users may want to skip).

In FreeBSD, we *do* have a compelling case for installing a small subset of the 
base system: service jails (or ‘containerised applications’ as the kids are 
calling them).  We want to be able to install, for example, owncloud and nginx 
or ejabberd in a jail with only the bare minimum required for them to start and 
run.  We want updates to these jails to be fast and we want disk usage (and 
install time) to be low.  In such a jail, I want a shell, the parts of sbin 
needed to do network setup, the libraries that these ports depend on, *and 
nothing else*.  We’re still a way away from doing that.

Comparing the installed sets can be simplified with some improvements to the 
pkg UI, for example allowing a set of packages to be aggregated into a single 
entry.  This is not quite the same as the metapackage concept.  If you install 
everything, then a FreeBSD-base-all metapackage might show up as a single thing 
unless you ask for a verbose output.  We can also present these in a 
hierarchical manner, so that you can drill down and see more detail if you want 

In terms of comparing packages, if you’re doing that visually then you are 
likely to have problems anyway, unless your eyes and brain work far better than 
most humans.  We can make that much easier by providing libxo output in pkg and 
allowing you to have a simple jq script that tells you what the differences are.


freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Reply via email to