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
After possibility of update individual package -- nuber of packages is
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.
> email@example.com mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"