Cy Schubert wrote on 2019/05/01 05:56:
In message <292eadc6-3662-ec43-1175-53fc25248...@quip.cz>, Miroslav
Lachman wri
tes:
David Chisnall wrote on 2019/04/30 10:22:
On 29/04/2019 21:12, Joe Maloney wrote:
With CFT version you chose to build, and package individual components
such as sendmail with a port option. That does entirely solve the
problem of being able to reinstall sendmail after the fact without a
rebuild of the userland (base) port but perhaps base flavors could
solve that problem assuming flavors could extend beyond python.
This sounds very much like local optimisation. It's now easy to create a
custom base image. Great. But how do I express dependencies in ports
on a specific base configuration? This is easy if I depend on a specific
base package, but how does this work in your model? For example, if I
have a package that depends on a library that is an optional part of the
base system, how do I express that pkg needs to either refuse to install
it, or install a userland pkg that includes that library in place of my
existing version as part of the install process?
More importantly for the container use case, if I want to take a
completely empty jail and do pkg ins nginx (for example), what does the
maintainer of the nginx port need to do to express the minimum set of
the base system that needs to be installed to allow nginx to work?
One of the goals for the pkg base concept was to allow this kind of use
case, easily creating a minimal environment required to run a single
service. With a monolithic base package set, you're going to need some
mechanism other than packages to express the specific base subset
package that you need and I think that you need to justify why this
mechanism is better than using small individual packages.
Will it not be maintainer's nightmare to take care of all the
dependencies on the base packages for each port we have in the ports tree?
No more than it is today. Remember, people have been doing this sort of
thing for decades. If the folks at Red Hat, Oracle (formerly Sun), and
IBM can do it, I'm sure we can too. The dependency lists will be
longer. We may require dependency lists that allow the choice of one of
many prereqs or coreqs.
They are experts and they are paid for their work. I am not. I am
maintaining a few packages and the reality is I don't know what they
need in base. Till these days I don't care about this kind of
dependency. I am not system developer or programmer and I think there
are more than just me who see this as a kind of problem.
So in this case, pkg base gives me nothing but more work on those packages.
Miroslav Lachman
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
