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 _______________________________________________ email@example.com mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"