On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 12:00:36PM +0300, Dan Partelly wrote: > IMO, the number of packages per-se is not a problem as long as you > can manage them without arcane commands, aliases, pipe - filters, > or scripts. (they all have their place, but less , the better) My > point is that I don't really want to keep on my head a Unix hacker > hat. I (and presumably many other humans ) like simple things,which > allow me to type a short command (preferably the whole system should > be simple enough to be explained in one-two pages in handbook) , > wait for completion, and get on with my life.
Yes and no. While number of packages don't see outside internal -- this is irrelevant. After possibility of update individual package -- nuber of packages is impotant. Take fresh 11.0. Before 11.1 update only kernel. What you system have? 11.0? 11.1-RC3? How you name it? How identify it for take support on forum or mail list? How name system, updated all w/o compiler? or only some services? Currently we have simple naming: 10.3-RC1, 10.3-RELEASE, 10.3-p7, 10.3-STABLE r123456. This is shortly and clearly identify system to anyone. How do this with many packages? I am describe in -pkgbase expirence of updating system. How I am can naming this (my) system? Solaris don't ship new version often and don't have rollover updates. I think, first step may be split to only two package (kernel and world) and resolve many other issuses: distinc base packages from port packages, beadm compatibility, /etc and config updates (/etc/rc.d is not config but currently allowed to editing, this is distinct from plain ports configs) and others. After expirence with this next step will be more clear. > When I said people should pay more attention to Redmond and Cupertino, this > is what I meant. UIs are important. Easy service management, fault reporting > and so on should be automated. We shouldn't waste our time doing what the > computer should do in the first place. Most people want to get the job > done, so they can proceed with what is important for them. I am very sorry > if this is so offensive to some people that they feel attacked, but > unfortunately there aint much I can do to alleviate this. > > > > > 1) The number of packages that the base system has. > > 2) The user interface by which the packages are presented. > > > > I believe (and, please, correct me if I’m wrong), that all of the > > complaints in this thread have been about the UI, not about the underlying > > mechanism. That’s not to say that they’re unimportant (quite the reverse), > > but that they can be solved concurrently with the task of preparing the > > base system for distribution in packaged form. > > > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
