On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 07:40:10PM +0000, Glen Barber wrote:
> 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.
Easy select from list of 1k items?!
email@example.com mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"