On 2016-04-18 7:01 PM, Roger Marquis wrote:
Can you explain what would be accomplished by testing all or even a
fraction of the possible permutations of base package combinations?  We
don't do that for ports.

The ports tree isn't a mandatory part of the system. And by definition it could not be tested that way, since it offers so many alternative implementations of specific functionality.

Other operating systems don't do that for
their base packages.

I'm pretty sure Solaris had some fairly hard-core regression tests to ensure basic system functionality wouldn't be compromised by 'oddball' selections of packages offered up at install time.

> Honestly, some of us are wondering what exactly is
> behind some of these concerns regarding base packages.

The concern is from all of us UNIX dinosaurs who predate the fine-grained packaging environment, which just worked, and who now rip our (little remaining) hair out due to unsolvable package dependency loops in the Linux machines we are forced to administer in order to pay rent. For me, as a sysadmin, I derive a negative benefit from this optimization.

I guess what I'm really asking is: where is the peer reviewed research that shows this actually improves things for the not-1% of FreeBSD users?


P.S. Don't turn this into a pissing match. I really want to know how this is of net benefit to everyone. But I don't want hyperbole. I have looked at a lot of, e.g., USENIX and ACM, bibliographies and papers for justification for this, and I can't find it. It would really help (me, at least) if someone could take a moment to point me at demonstrable evidence of the benefits of this model.
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Reply via email to