On 04/19/16 10:55, Roger Marquis wrote:
Please, consider ops and admins, who must support old installations,
often made by other, not-reachable, people, and stuff like this,
Ops and admins such as myself are exactly the ones who will benefit most
from base packages. Being able run to: 1) 'pkg audit' and see that base
ssl has a vulnerability, 2) 'pkg install -f' to update 3) only those
specific parts of base that need to be updated is far simpler (KIS) and
faster than what we go through now. More than a few formerly bsd shops
have migrated to linux simply to avoid regular iterations of cd
/usr/src; svn up; make cleanworld; make buildworld installworld ...
The use cases for granular base packages are more numerous than even
these obvious ones. The downside OTOH, seems to consist of not much
more than the size of the package list. If I missed other issues please
do clarify. Will base packages be improved, sure, but they're already
more useful and bugfree than pkgng when it was mandated.
In any case, if I'm not mistaken base packages are entirely optional.
Thanks, Roger. That seems perfectly reasonable. I'm not sure that goal
is really met by having 800 packages, though, or at least I see no
particular gain relative to a handful (where things like OpenSSL or
sendmail would be discrete things). (Almost) every single individual
library in the base system is right now its own single-file package,
which is what I am objecting to. The upside of that seems pretty dubious
and the downside is that it is much easier to accidentally put the
system into an inconsistent state. Is there a reason you want to have
such very fine discretization?
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"