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 <l...@freebsd.org> 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
> 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.

This granularity allows easy removal of things that may not be wanted
(such as *-debug*, *-profile*, etc.) on systems with little storage.  On
one of my testing systems, I removed the tests packages and all debug
and profiling, and the number of base system packages is 383.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to