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 

Allowing to have one file in multiple packages may be solution:

base-11.0.txz have /usr/libexec/sendmail/sendmail
base-11.0-p1.txz depends on base-11.0.txz and contains just single
/usr/libexec/sendmail/sendmail -- security update.

This packages must be installed together and presents
/usr/libexec/sendmail/sendmail in both must not be error.

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

Reply via email to