Sorry, missed this reply. On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 08:12:52AM +0000, Matthew Seaman wrote: > On 04/03/2016 01:09, Glen Barber wrote: > >> I was prepared to freak out at this, but with half the packages > >> > consisting of debugging symbols for binaries that ship stripped in > >> > 10.x anyway (so most users would never need nor install those > >> > packages), the number isn't so unreasonable. I get 531 non-"-debug-" > >> > packages here, which is still more than I'd like but tolerable given > >> > how many of them will never be installed. (Could some of those > >> > library packages be consolidated? > > > This was intentional. If, for example, there is a libxo bug that > > requires an EN or SA, we do not want the binary upgrade to exceed more > > than required. > > Bapt's presentation at BSDCan last year explained the reasoning behind > how the base was divided up into packages. He said at the time that it > was impossible to do in a way that wouldn't get complaints from someone, > so he opted for maximum flexibility -- meaning a lot of fine-grained > packages plus a heirarchy of meta-packages to make it easy to install > and manage package sets in commonly used combinations. >
This is correct. > So, for instance, there might be a 'FreeBSD-debug' that would depend on > 'FreeBSD-library-debug', 'FreeBSD-application-debug' etc. and > 'FreeBSD-library-debug' would depend on the individual > 'FreeBSD-libfoo-debug' packages that actually install the symbol files. > (So you could strip all the debug symbols from your install by 'pkg > delete -fR FreeBSD-debug') > > I'm not seeing any of those meta packages in the base repo built > following Glen's instructions -- is there some other step necessary to > generate them? > Meta packages are still being thought out, and not yet implemented. The problem I ran into last time I tried creating a meta package including the minimal set of packages required (FreeBSD-runtime, FreeBSD-kernel and FreeBSD-clibs) was that I could not see a way to update one of them without adversely affecting behavior. If I recall correctly, updating the PKG_VERSION for FreeBSD-runtime (to see what would happen when issuing an EN or SA) propagated "what was to be upgraded" in a way I did not expect, so all packages part of the meta package were updated. That is, if I recall correctly. Note, this predates the pkg(8) patch for shlib tracking, so may not be an issue any longer. Glen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
