Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On 4/19/16 7:47 AM, dan_partelly wrote: Look, take a look at history and the Linux kernel threads story and its impact on FreeBSD. If you'd like I can talk about it. Please, yes, I would love to hear about it. Sure, so back in late 90s, ~1999 sometime after Solaris released kernel threads

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

> > Look, take a look at history and the Linux kernel threads story and its > impact on FreeBSD. If you'd like I can talk about it. > Please, yes, I would love to hear about it. > -Alfred > > ___ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list >

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On 4/19/16 7:39 AM, dan_partelly wrote: What should not happen is that this incremental step forward be blocked by those unwilling to hash out the next steps. -Alfred While incremental steps forward are great, how do you avoid situations like VNET, where a "good enough" enough

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

> > What should not happen is that this incremental step forward be blocked > by those unwilling to hash out the next steps. > > -Alfred > > While incremental steps forward are great, how do you avoid situations like VNET, where a "good enough" enough implementation, usable in some

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

It is very important to understand that a packaged base is extremely useful for those building any sort of distro or appliance distro. So although the concept of "user serviceable" is important, it's not just that. Such a change makes it easy for a distro or appliance making to cherry pick

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 07:27:52AM -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > Again, the point is that those objecting should put aside the time to > implement what you (and I) are suggesting: > > > I could live with: > > > > base-utils11.1 > > - ktrace uninstalled > > - tcpdump uninstalled > > +

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

Again, the point is that those objecting should put aside the time to implement what you (and I) are suggesting: I could live with: base-utils11.1 - ktrace uninstalled - tcpdump uninstalled + dd 11.1.1 (CVE-123412 fix) but not {700 packages ) dd 11.1.1 dd with CVE fix

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 12:27:51PM +0200, Lars Engels wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 12:18:00PM +0300, dan_partelly wrote: > > > > be as terse as possible. You guys seen the "Add remove programs" > > in Windows control panel ? Thats sane. Even now the default output > > of pkg borders

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

I dont know if you missed the point of my message on purpose or not. I never pretended that you can't extract that information. I maintain that having sane defaults would empower me to almost never care about aliases, scripts pipes, filter , regular expressions and what not. It is great that all

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 12:18:00PM +0300, dan_partelly wrote: > > be as terse as possible. You guys seen the "Add remove programs" > in Windows control panel ? Thats sane. Even now the default output > of pkg borders insane, when you have many packages installed. 99% of my > time > I dont

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

For what is worth, I agree with Julian Elischer. I do not want to see hundreds of packages over tenths of screen pages. Computers are supposed to make our life simpler. Human time is very expensive. CPU time, almost free. And this include that I really shouldn't have to think for usual work

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

> > And nowhere did it say "buildworld/buildkernel would no longer work." > > Glen It may very well work, but you consider a listing of hundred of packages on a fresh system a sane default ? ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 08:41:29AM +, Glen Barber wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 11:39:11AM +0300, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 07:31:17AM +, Glen Barber wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 03:24:30PM +0800, Julian Elischer wrote: > > > > We've managed to

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 11:39:11AM +0300, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 07:31:17AM +, Glen Barber wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 03:24:30PM +0800, Julian Elischer wrote: > > > We've managed to keep this disease out of BSD since I started to do it in > > > 1990.

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 07:31:17AM +, Glen Barber wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 03:24:30PM +0800, Julian Elischer wrote: > > We've managed to keep this disease out of BSD since I started to do it in > > 1990. First we laughed/fumed at Sun's Solaris when they unbundled the > > compiler.

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 08:54:48AM +0100, David Chisnall wrote: > 2) People wanting to install embedded systems. Anyone who has tried > to run FreeBSD on a system with a small amount of flash storage will > have encountered the pain of having to use some kind of ad-hoc > update. Being able to

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On 19 Apr 2016, at 08:44, Julian Elischer wrote: > >> All this can be done by meta-packages which depend on larger package groups. > Currently Metapackage is a way to make 10 packages look like 11 packages. > The framework needs to understand to hide the 10 internal

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On 19/04/2016 5:29 AM, Alfred Perlstein wrote: Guys please stop arguing about the number of packages. The high granularity is VERY useful! it's going to make us a laughing stock "look FreeBSD just split into 1.43 million packages" (effectively the same number.. it's bigger than 10)

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

Lyndon Nerenberg wrote on 04/19/2016 05:24: On 2016-04-18 8:17 PM, Alfred Perlstein wrote: Can someone on the "too many packages" campaign here explain to me how having too fine a granularity stops you from making macro packages containing packages? Because honestly I can't see how having

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 08:17:12PM -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > Maybe what the "too many packages" folks need to do is write some code > to hide that it's so many packages. > > :) > > I think the rule of two feet should be applied here. > > What we have is people that have worked quite

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 03:24:30PM +0800, Julian Elischer wrote: > We've managed to keep this disease out of BSD since I started to do it in > 1990. First we laughed/fumed at Sun's Solaris when they unbundled the > compiler. then we fumed at xorg when hey took a useful package and made 190 > odd

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On 19/04/2016 3:14 AM, Glen Barber wrote: On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:01:46PM -0700, Sean Fagan wrote: On Apr 18, 2016, at 11:52 AM, Lev Serebryakov wrote: I understand, that maybe it is too late, but ARE YOU KIDDING?! 755 packages?! WHY?! What are reasons and goals to split

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

> Den 19. apr. 2016 kl. 03.24 skrev Lyndon Nerenberg : > > There aren't enough seconds in the universe to test all the viable > combinations for one single release. We don't even do that with the WITH_FOO/WITHOUT_FOO options now, so why should that be a criteria? You can

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On 2016-04-18 8:17 PM, Alfred Perlstein wrote: Can someone on the "too many packages" campaign here explain to me how having too fine a granularity stops you from making macro packages containing packages? Because honestly I can't see how having granularity hurts at all when if someone wanted

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

Maybe what the "too many packages" folks need to do is write some code to hide that it's so many packages. :) I think the rule of two feet should be applied here. What we have is people that have worked quite hard to bring us something that we can easily work with, and on the other hand some

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On 2016-04-18 7:01 PM, Roger Marquis wrote: Can you explain what would be accomplished by testing all or even a fraction of the possible permutations of base package combinations? We don't do that for ports. The ports tree isn't a mandatory part of the system. And by definition it could not

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: There aren't enough seconds in the universe to test all the viable combinations for one single release. Can you explain what would be accomplished by testing all or even a fraction of the possible permutations of base package combinations? We don't do that for ports.

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On 2016-04-18 5:09 PM, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: I'm not so sure about these statements. Maintaining groups of packages can be easier, but it can be also be harder. The goal is to find the right level. And I haven't seen a case where an 800-packages level of granularity is helpful. Not to

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On 04/18/16 14:29, Alfred Perlstein wrote: Guys please stop arguing about the number of packages. The high granularity is VERY useful! Managing large groups of small packages is much easier than just having large packages. I'm not so sure about these statements. Maintaining groups of

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 12:43:08AM +0300, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:01:46PM -0700, Sean Fagan wrote: > > > On Apr 18, 2016, at 11:52 AM, Lev Serebryakov wrote: > > > > > > I understand, that maybe it is too late, but ARE YOU KIDDING?! 755 > > >

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 10:30:48PM +0200, Rainer Duffner wrote: > > > Am 18.04.2016 um 22:07 schrieb Lev Serebryakov : > > > > On 18.04.2016 22:40, Glen Barber wrote: > > > >> This granularity allows easy removal of things that may not be wanted > >> (such as *-debug*,

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:21:28PM -0700, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: > > > On 04/18/16 12:14, Glen Barber wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:01:46PM -0700, Sean Fagan wrote: > >> On Apr 18, 2016, at 11:52 AM, Lev Serebryakov wrote: > >>> I understand, that maybe it is too

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:01:46PM -0700, Sean Fagan wrote: > On Apr 18, 2016, at 11:52 AM, Lev Serebryakov wrote: > > > > I understand, that maybe it is too late, but ARE YOU KIDDING?! 755 > > packages?! WHY?! What are reasons and goals to split base in such > > enormous

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

Guys please stop arguing about the number of packages. The high granularity is VERY useful! Managing large groups of small packages is much easier than just having large packages. All this can be done by meta-packages which depend on larger package groups. Later pkg can be augmented to

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On 18.04.2016 23:30, Rainer Duffner wrote: > From the discussion, I believe it’s primarily driven by the need/desire to > have small packages to make updates easier on the mirror-servers. It is bad driver. Mirror servers are hardware. And this enormous number of packages cause problems for

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

> Am 18.04.2016 um 22:07 schrieb Lev Serebryakov : > > On 18.04.2016 22:40, Glen Barber wrote: > >> This granularity allows easy removal of things that may not be wanted >> (such as *-debug*, *-profile*, etc.) on systems with little storage. On >> one of my testing systems, I

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On 18.04.2016 22:40, Glen Barber wrote: > This granularity allows easy removal of things that may not be wanted > (such as *-debug*, *-profile*, etc.) on systems with little storage. On > one of my testing systems, I removed the tests packages and all debug > and profiling, and the number of

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 08:05:05PM +, Glen Barber wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:02:12PM +0300, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: > > > This granularity allows easy removal of things that may not be wanted > > > (such as *-debug*, *-profile*, etc.) on systems with little storage. On > > > one

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 07:40:10PM +, Glen Barber wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:21:28PM -0700, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: > > > > > > On 04/18/16 12:14, Glen Barber wrote: > > >On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:01:46PM -0700, Sean Fagan wrote: > > >>On Apr 18, 2016, at 11:52 AM, Lev Serebryakov

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:02:12PM +0300, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: > > This granularity allows easy removal of things that may not be wanted > > (such as *-debug*, *-profile*, etc.) on systems with little storage. On > > one of my testing systems, I removed the tests packages and all debug > >

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:21:28PM -0700, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: > > > On 04/18/16 12:14, Glen Barber wrote: > >On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:01:46PM -0700, Sean Fagan wrote: > >>On Apr 18, 2016, at 11:52 AM, Lev Serebryakov wrote: > >>>I understand, that maybe it is too late,

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On 04/18/16 12:14, Glen Barber wrote: On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:01:46PM -0700, Sean Fagan wrote: On Apr 18, 2016, at 11:52 AM, Lev Serebryakov wrote: I understand, that maybe it is too late, but ARE YOU KIDDING?! 755 packages?! WHY?! What are reasons and goals to split

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Apr 18, 2016, at 11:52 AM, Lev Serebryakov wrote: > > I understand, that maybe it is too late, but ARE YOU KIDDING?! 755 > packages?! WHY?! What are reasons and goals to split base in such > enormous number of packages? Just a guess, having done the same thing myself: it

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:01:46PM -0700, Sean Fagan wrote: > On Apr 18, 2016, at 11:52 AM, Lev Serebryakov wrote: > > > > I understand, that maybe it is too late, but ARE YOU KIDDING?! 755 > > packages?! WHY?! What are reasons and goals to split base in such > > enormous

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On 18.04.2016 21:52, Lev Serebryakov wrote: > kerberos Ok, kerberos could not be packetized at all, as it is compilation option for many other programs in tree. But 755 packets doesn't solve this problem too. -- // Lev Serebryakov signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On 03.03.2016 02:54, Glen Barber wrote: > At present, the base system consists of 755 packages with the default > build (empty src.conf(5) and make.conf(5)) for amd64. The number of > packages depends on several factors, but for most cases a runtime binary > is split into several components. In

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 08:53:10 +0100, José Pérez wrote: > El 2016-03-03 11:27, Matthew Seaman escribió: > > On 03/02/16 23:54, Glen Barber wrote: > >> Also note (as repeated below), running 'pkg delete -a' will implicitly > >> remove base system packages after they are installed.

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote on 03/14/2016 20:29: Miroslav Lachman <000.f...@quip.cz> writes: Bryan Drewery writes: https://github.com/freebsd/pkg/blob/master/scripts/pkg_tree.sh Can you publish it as a port? I know there is one written in Perl but I like your sh without

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

El 2016-03-03 11:27, Matthew Seaman escribió: On 03/02/16 23:54, Glen Barber wrote: Also note (as repeated below), running 'pkg delete -a' will implicitly remove base system packages after they are installed. This has the potential for many feet to be shot, given that up to now, 'pkg delete

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 12:38:55PM -0700, Bryan Drewery wrote: > On 3/14/16 12:29 PM, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > > Miroslav Lachman <000.f...@quip.cz> writes: > >> Bryan Drewery writes: > >>> https://github.com/freebsd/pkg/blob/master/scripts/pkg_tree.sh > >> Can you

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On 3/14/16 12:29 PM, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > Miroslav Lachman <000.f...@quip.cz> writes: >> Bryan Drewery writes: >>> https://github.com/freebsd/pkg/blob/master/scripts/pkg_tree.sh >> Can you publish it as a port? I know there is one written in Perl but >> I like your

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On 3/13/16 7:07 AM, Daniel Eischen wrote: > On Sat, 12 Mar 2016, Bryan Drewery wrote: > >> On 3/11/16 9:01 AM, Daniel Eischen wrote: >>> On Fri, 11 Mar 2016, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: >>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 01:05:11PM +0100, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

Miroslav Lachman <000.f...@quip.cz> writes: > Bryan Drewery writes: > > https://github.com/freebsd/pkg/blob/master/scripts/pkg_tree.sh > Can you publish it as a port? I know there is one written in Perl but > I like your sh without dependencies. It's not very useful, in my

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On March 13, 2016 10:17:05 AM EDT, Miroslav Lachman <000.f...@quip.cz> wrote: >Bryan Drewery wrote on 03/13/2016 06:00: >> On 3/11/16 9:01 AM, Daniel Eischen wrote: >>> On Fri, 11 Mar 2016, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: >>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 01:05:11PM +0100, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

Bryan Drewery wrote on 03/13/2016 06:00: On 3/11/16 9:01 AM, Daniel Eischen wrote: On Fri, 11 Mar 2016, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 01:05:11PM +0100, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 05:35:59PM +, David Chisnall wrote: On 8 Mar 2016, at 15:14,

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Sat, 12 Mar 2016, Bryan Drewery wrote: On 3/11/16 9:01 AM, Daniel Eischen wrote: On Fri, 11 Mar 2016, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 01:05:11PM +0100, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 05:35:59PM +, David Chisnall wrote: On 8 Mar 2016, at 15:14,

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On 3/11/16 9:01 AM, Daniel Eischen wrote: > On Fri, 11 Mar 2016, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: > >> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 01:05:11PM +0100, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 05:35:59PM +, David Chisnall wrote: On 8 Mar 2016, at 15:14, Slawa Olhovchenkov

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

Daniel Eischen writes: > It would be nice to have pkg(8) show packages in tree form, with option > to show just top-level meta packages or packages that have no meta. Packages not marked as automatically installed: # pkg query -e '%a == 0' %n-%v Packages with no reverse

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 12:01:34PM -0500, Daniel Eischen wrote: > On Fri, 11 Mar 2016, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 01:05:11PM +0100, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 05:35:59PM +, David Chisnall wrote: > >>> On 8 Mar 2016, at 15:14, Slawa

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 01:05:11PM +0100, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 05:35:59PM +, David Chisnall wrote: On 8 Mar 2016, at 15:14, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: In terms of comparing packages, if

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote on 03/11/2016 15:51: On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 03:39:08PM +0100, Miroslav Lachman wrote: [...] recompile whole system and reinstall on all machines instead of just I am proposed: patch packages (replaced or removed some files). some small package. It has it's

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 03:39:08PM +0100, Miroslav Lachman wrote: > >> Anything else is on your side and even if I understand your complaints > >> (and I agree with some of them) I don't thing it will change anything on > >> the future of packaged base. > >> So it is better to spend our time on

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote on 03/11/2016 15:05: On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 02:58:17PM +0100, Miroslav Lachman wrote: Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote on 03/11/2016 14:31: On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 02:20:59PM +0100, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 04:10:56PM +0300, Slawa Olhovchenkov

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 02:58:17PM +0100, Miroslav Lachman wrote: > Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote on 03/11/2016 14:31: > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 02:20:59PM +0100, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 04:10:56PM +0300, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: > >>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote on 03/11/2016 14:31: On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 02:20:59PM +0100, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 04:10:56PM +0300, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 01:05:11PM +0100, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: [...] Case of only a few monolitic

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 02:20:59PM +0100, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 04:10:56PM +0300, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 01:05:11PM +0100, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 05:35:59PM +, David Chisnall wrote: > > > > On 8

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 04:10:56PM +0300, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 01:05:11PM +0100, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 05:35:59PM +, David Chisnall wrote: > > > On 8 Mar 2016, at 15:14, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: > > > > > > >

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 01:05:11PM +0100, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 05:35:59PM +, David Chisnall wrote: > > On 8 Mar 2016, at 15:14, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: > > > > > > > In terms of comparing packages, if you’re doing that visually then you are

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 05:35:59PM +, David Chisnall wrote: > On 8 Mar 2016, at 15:14, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: > > > > In terms of comparing packages, if you’re doing that visually then you are > likely to have problems anyway, unless your eyes and brain work far better

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 03:40:16PM +0300, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: > About use cases. I am try to imagine different use cases and don't > found answer how do this: > > 1. package building as `make packages` witch version as timestamp of > start buildworld. I.e. on every buildworld every package

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

In FreeBSD, we *do* have a compelling case for installing a small subset of the base system: service jails (or ?containerised applications? as the kids are calling them). We want to be able to install, for example, owncloud and nginx or ejabberd in a jail with only the bare minimum required for

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 05:35:59PM +, David Chisnall wrote: > On 8 Mar 2016, at 15:14, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: > > > > Yes, I undertund this. But what profit of this? Addtional size is > > small, many small packages is bad. We already have expirense with > > spliting Xorg

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On 8 Mar 2016, at 15:14, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: > > Yes, I undertund this. But what profit of this? Addtional size is > small, many small packages is bad. We already have expirense with > spliting Xorg to many small packages -- no profit of this. The X.org case is similar,

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 02:39:24PM +0100, Miroslav Lachman wrote: > Glen Barber wrote on 03/08/2016 14:18: > > On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 03:40:16PM +0300, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: > > [...] > > >> Packaging of individual utilites is useless (total 19MB vs > >> 30.7+2.8+20.7+2.9) and incorrect

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 01:18:47PM +, Glen Barber wrote: > On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 03:40:16PM +0300, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 11:54:29PM +, Glen Barber wrote: > > > > > To obtain the sources for testing, please use the projects/release-pkg > > > branch: > > >

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

Glen Barber wrote on 03/08/2016 14:18: On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 03:40:16PM +0300, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: [...] Packaging of individual utilites is useless (total 19MB vs 30.7+2.8+20.7+2.9) and incorrect (for example, WITHOUT_ACCT not only don't build accton/lastcomm/sa but also cut off

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 03:40:16PM +0300, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: > On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 11:54:29PM +, Glen Barber wrote: > > > To obtain the sources for testing, please use the projects/release-pkg > > branch: > > > > # svn co svn://svn.freebsd.org/base/projects/release-pkg /usr/src >

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 11:54:29PM +, Glen Barber wrote: > To obtain the sources for testing, please use the projects/release-pkg > branch: > > # svn co svn://svn.freebsd.org/base/projects/release-pkg /usr/src > > The projects/release-pkg branch is (at this time) in sync with head >

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 2:38 AM, Graham Menhennitt wrote: > > > On 7/03/2016 12:28 PM, Warren Block wrote: > >> On Sun, 6 Mar 2016, Glen Barber wrote: >> >> On Sun, Mar 06, 2016 at 12:39:57PM +0100, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >>> On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 10:27:00AM

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On 7/03/2016 12:28 PM, Warren Block wrote: On Sun, 6 Mar 2016, Glen Barber wrote: On Sun, Mar 06, 2016 at 12:39:57PM +0100, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 10:27:00AM +, Matthew Seaman wrote: It is planned to have a "precious" flag for packages which will prevent pkg

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Sun, 6 Mar 2016, Glen Barber wrote: On Sun, Mar 06, 2016 at 12:39:57PM +0100, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 10:27:00AM +, Matthew Seaman wrote: On 03/02/16 23:54, Glen Barber wrote: Also note (as repeated below), running 'pkg delete -a' will implicitly remove base

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Sun, Mar 06, 2016 at 12:39:57PM +0100, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 10:27:00AM +, Matthew Seaman wrote: > > On 03/02/16 23:54, Glen Barber wrote: > > > Also note (as repeated below), running 'pkg delete -a' will implicitly > > > remove base system packages after they

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 10:27:00AM +, Matthew Seaman wrote: > On 03/02/16 23:54, Glen Barber wrote: > > Also note (as repeated below), running 'pkg delete -a' will implicitly > > remove base system packages after they are installed. > > This has the potential for many feet to be shot, given

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Sun, Mar 06, 2016 at 01:53:42AM +0100, Dimitry Andric wrote: > On 03 Mar 2016, at 00:54, Glen Barber wrote: > > > > For those who have missed the initial email surrounding this topic, we > > are planning on packaging the base system with pkg(8) for 11.0-RELEASE. > ... > > #

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On 03 Mar 2016, at 00:54, Glen Barber wrote: > > For those who have missed the initial email surrounding this topic, we > are planning on packaging the base system with pkg(8) for 11.0-RELEASE. ... > # pkg update -r FreeBSD-base > # pkg install -g 'FreeBSD-*' FWIW, this went

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On 03/02/16 23:54, Glen Barber wrote: > Also note (as repeated below), running 'pkg delete -a' will implicitly > remove base system packages after they are installed. This has the potential for many feet to be shot, given that up to now, 'pkg delete -a' would always leave you with a viable

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 11:54:29PM +, Glen Barber wrote: > For those who have missed the initial email surrounding this topic, we > are planning on packaging the base system with pkg(8) for 11.0-RELEASE. > > https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-pkgbase/2016-January/00.html > > At

<    1   2