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

On (19/04/2016 13:36), Adrian Chadd wrote: > It's cool. I have positive and negative reactions, and I'm totally > happy to let people try it out at a larger scale and learn from > mistakes. > > Because, honestly - fuck it, we've been behind for too long. We need > more mature tools and knowledge

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

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 08:16:36AM -0500, Andrew Berg wrote: > Also, how much response do you expect in ~17 hours? Developers need time to > sleep, do their day jobs, and formulate a detailed response to a detailed > email. OK, week later -- no any ("interesting", "not interesting", "know

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

On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Daniel Eischen wrote: > On Sun, 24 Apr 2016, Warner Losh wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 6:34 AM, Daniel Eischen >> wrote: >> >> On Sat, 23 Apr 2016, Warner Losh wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 7:51 AM,

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

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 10:40:24AM +0800, Alastair Hogge wrote: > Will /usr/src/release/release.sh eventually support building base packages > as an option? Yes. Glen signature.asc Description: PGP signature

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

Dear FreeBSD community, Thanks so much for this awesome effort. Will /usr/src/release/release.sh eventually support building base packages as an option? If possible, is it something that we could see soon? Ta, Alastair -- Why isn't there a special name for the tops of your feet?

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

On Sun, 24 Apr 2016, Warner Losh wrote: On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 6:34 AM, Daniel Eischen wrote: On Sat, 23 Apr 2016, Warner Losh wrote: On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 7:51 AM, Daniel Eischen wrote: [CC trimmed] On Fri, 22 Apr 2016, Warner Losh wrote:

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

On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 6:34 AM, Daniel Eischen wrote: > On Sat, 23 Apr 2016, Warner Losh wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 7:51 AM, Daniel Eischen >> wrote: >> >> [CC trimmed] >>> >>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2016, Warner Losh wrote: >>> >>> I personally

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

> On Apr 24, 2016, at 05:34, Daniel Eischen wrote: > >> On Sat, 23 Apr 2016, Warner Losh wrote: >> >> On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 7:51 AM, Daniel Eischen >> wrote: >> >>> [CC trimmed] >>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2016, Warner Losh wrote: I

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

On Sat, 23 Apr 2016, Warner Losh wrote: On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 7:51 AM, Daniel Eischen wrote: [CC trimmed] On Fri, 22 Apr 2016, Warner Losh wrote: I personally will be refraining from engaging further. I plan on seeing what gaps there are by adding support to

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

This was all it was asked. Thanks. > Im saying that feedback has been heard and understood and providing more > now while things are in flux to try to address those issues is not likely > to be fruitful. > Warner > > Links: > -- > [1] mailto:dan_parte...@rdsor.ro

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

On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 7:51 AM, Daniel Eischen wrote: > [CC trimmed] > > On Fri, 22 Apr 2016, Warner Losh wrote: > >> >> I personally will be refraining from engaging further. I plan on seeing >> what gaps there are by adding support to NanoBSD for packages. I'll be >>

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

On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 12:27 AM, Dan Partelly wrote: > You says that everything will be OK. I want to believe you. But giving > the track record VIMAGE has, and how many gugs go on and on with years Im > not so sure that you guys wont do the same with this subsystem,

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

To clarify this proposal a bit better, there are only two flags I think should be added to pkg to accommodate the usability issues introduced by base packages and to do so without breaking existing scripts and aliases: -b) only display base packages -B) display both base and third party

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

[CC trimmed] On Fri, 22 Apr 2016, Warner Losh wrote: I personally will be refraining from engaging further. I plan on seeing what gaps there are by adding support to NanoBSD for packages. I'll be busy with that. In talking to Glen and others, we've already identified a few easy gaps to fill.

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

Sorry for hijacking this thread but where can one find the code for 11-CURRENT that handles the packaging of base? I would like to have a look at it so I can form my opinion on packaging base. I moved to FreeBSD from LinuxFromScratch, ( I packaged that with the RPM package manager and it

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

>> > > *THAT* is the tone I was complaining about. This is not at all respectful. > Respect is a two way street. If you want respect, offer yours. We make our point very poorly, I get you, but it is the result of what you and others from the projectdo. Meaning, 0 communication. I dont

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

Hi! > This works fine (after a source rebuild of pkg), but for tools like > portupgrade (from ports), which use pkg under the hood to handle > dependency checks. pkg against the ports tree vs. pkg against my > LOCALBASE=/usr/pkg were conflicting. So I asked some questions about how > to

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

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 8:41 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: > You guys need to get over that and come back to the table to have a > rational discussion with the vast majority of people who actually USE this > OS. All glory to Juniper and Citrix and everyone else who packages the

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

On Tue, 19 Apr 2016, Warner Losh wrote: Sadly the tenor and tone of the discussion isn?t one where progress is made. The tone has been a bit toxic and demanding, which grinds people into dust, rather than motivating them to fix things. You might call it a discussion, but it reads to me more

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

On Tue, 19 Apr 2016, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: As far as I know, nobody is taking the source code or the Makefiles away, so if somebody doesn't like the system being distributed with pkg, they can very well roll their own. True enough. But I am also wary of decending into what became of X,

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

Hi! dan wrote: > Another small issue, is in general the politics of the FreeBSD dev team > regarding bug fixes. I personally would be glad to see more commitment from > the dev team regarding bug fixes. >From what I can see, there's not much politics, but serious work overload, and not much room

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

As long as packaged base is not mandatory, it is fine by me. +1 on that ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to

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

Julian Elischer wrote: I mentioned this before but I think hte answer is to make a change on the way that "meta packages" are displayed by default in pkg. I like this suggestion both as it applies to base and third party packages and agree that the 'leaf' keyword, once documented, will

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

It's lack of communication. > *This* is the reason that *this* and similar topics become so heated; > People who are part of a "community", such as FreeBSD. Want to feel > they are part of the "big picture", and immediately feel resentment, It is in fact much more than that. Surely there are

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

On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 20:09:30 + "Poul-Henning Kamp" wrote > As far as I know, nobody is taking the source code or the Makefiles > away, so if somebody doesn't like the system being distributed with > pkg, they can very well roll their own. > > It's nice to see the level

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

> > Not taking a side on this discussion, yet… but the first thing that I do not believe there are sides to take, because I am absolutely positive everybody in this thread wants only whats better for FreeBSD, so there is only one side. It is an aspect which in the heat of emotions some people

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

> On 19.04.2016 г., at 5:01, Roger Marquis wrote: > > Honestly, some of us are wondering what exactly is > behind some of these concerns regarding base packages. > Not taking a side on this discussion, yet… but the first thing that occurred to me is that such way of

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

This is one of the issue I perceive with using scripts/ intermediate programs as a glue, a problem which does not exist when the daemons are integrated tighter. You basically give up all the power which arises from inter-operating daemons give to the system. It is also the main problem

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

On 0422T0908, David Chisnall wrote: > On 21 Apr 2016, at 21:48, Dan Partelly wrote: > > > > Yes, you are right it misses the media change handler in devd.conf. > > maybe it should bementioned somewhere in a man page if it is not > > already there. Thanks for the pointer.

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

On 0421T2348, Dan Partelly wrote: > Yes, you are right it misses the media change handler in devd.conf. > maybe it should bementioned somewhere in a man page if it is not > already there. Thanks for the pointer. It's mentioned in a comment in auto_master file. But yeah, mentioning it in a

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

On 21 Apr 2016, at 21:48, Dan Partelly wrote: > > Yes, you are right it misses the media change handler in devd.conf. > maybe it should bementioned somewhere in a man page if it is not > already there. Thanks for the pointer. > > Anyway, if I would have written the

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

Yes, you are right it misses the media change handler in devd.conf. maybe it should bementioned somewhere in a man page if it is not already there. Thanks for the pointer. Anyway, if I would have written the system, what I would have done is to consolidate both user mode daemons into one and

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

On 0421T1526, Dan Partelly wrote: > The scenario is: > > Let’s say I have autofs_enable , working with media map. > > If I have a CD in CD drive , all is well and when the system is fully booted > up > /media contains a directory through which I can access the content of the > CD-ROM. Now if

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

The scenario is: Let’s say I have autofs_enable , working with media map. If I have a CD in CD drive , all is well and when the system is fully booted up /media contains a directory through which I can access the content of the CD-ROM. Now if you eject this CD , and insert a new one, nothing

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

On 0420T1545, dan_partelly wrote: [..] > Another example is the autofs mounter. The prject was marked as complete > by FreeBSD foundation in 2014. Last I tried it to autmount removable > devices, it left directory after directory in the autofs managed directory. > This is known behavior. Yup.

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

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 11:57:47AM -0400, Paul Mather wrote: > On Apr 20, 2016, at 10:54 AM, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: > > >> A packaged base is just another way of describing the state of the > >> system. People on mailing lists will still be able to help people > >> fix

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

___ 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"

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

On Apr 20, 2016, at 10:54 AM, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: >> A packaged base is just another way of describing the state of the >> system. People on mailing lists will still be able to help people >> fix their problems, but they'll just use different information to >> pinpoint

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

On 20 Apr 2016, at 15:53, Paul Mather wrote: > > Arguably, a packaged base will make it easier to help people, because it > makes more explicit the dependencies of different parts of the system. It's > been my experience that the interactions and impact of the various

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

ra...@freebsd.org>, Julian Elischer > > <jul...@freebsd.org>, Nathan Whitehorn <nwhiteh...@freebsd.org>, > > freebsd-current@freebsd.org > > Subject: Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8) > > Message-ID: <20160420094806.gj6...@zxy.spb.ru> >

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

<nwhiteh...@freebsd.org>, > freebsd-current@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8) > Message-ID: <20160420094806.gj6...@zxy.spb.ru> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 12:00:36PM +0300, Dan Partelly w

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

On 2016.04.20 07:58, Lev Serebryakov wrote: It is very worrying to see such reports without any reaction from developers in one month before release. If there is one year till release, it is nothing. But in one month we will have code slush, and after that — release, which should be supported

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

On 20.04.2016 11:12, David Chisnall wrote: > all of the complaints in this thread have been about the UI, not about the > underlying mechanism. Nope. And there are (small) thread in other mailing list with very big concerns about underlying mechanisms, which doesn't have any attention:

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

> If these informations were more public I think there will be less > annoyed posts in mailinglist and more constructive critics / ideas / > patches. > And there other issues arising from the lack of communication: How exactly bugs / incomplete features are treated in FreeBSD ? Many times

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

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 11:43:00AM +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote: > On 04/20/16 10:48, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: > > > While number of packages don't see outside internal -- this is > > irrelevant. > > After possibility of update individual package -- nuber of packages is > > impotant. > > Take

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

Matthew Seaman wrote on 04/20/2016 12:43: On the release of 11.1 there would be a complete new set of system packages generated, and the upgrade process would install the new versions of those packages all round, even if the content of an individual package was identical to the one in 11.0.

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

It would also be nice to get a statement of what the intended scope of these patches is from some of the people involved in the project. It's a major change to the system and it would be nice to have some kind of architectural document about what is happening. I'm not sure, for instance, what the

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

On 04/20/16 10:48, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: > 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?

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

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

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

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

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

On 20 Apr 2016, at 06:06, Julian Elischer wrote: > > my problem with 400 packages is that is is hard to decide what you are > actually running.. or is it FreeBSD 11? is it FreeBSD 10.95342453? > you have no way to tell exactly what you have without comparing all the >

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

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:14 PM, 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 >> >

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

On 20/04/2016 06:12, Daniel Eischen wrote: > [And it really bothers me that FreeBSD 'pkg list' behaves > like 'pkg files' or similar should. It seems intuitive > that 'pkg list' should list the packages, not all the files > in all the packages.] 'pkg list' is one of the aliases defined in the

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

On 20/04/2016 2:25 PM, Daniel Eischen wrote: On Wed, 20 Apr 2016, Allan Jude wrote: On 2016-04-20 01:12, Daniel Eischen wrote: For one of our Solaris 11 boxes, which also serves as a VNC thin client server and NFS server, we have: [sol11] $ pkg list | wc -l 968 That server includes

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

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 04:22:31AM +, Glen Barber wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 07:15:22AM +0300, dan_partelly wrote: > > On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 04:07:11 +, Glen Barber wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 06:59:38AM +0300, dan_partelly wrote: > > >> > > >> > > > >> >

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

On Wed, 20 Apr 2016, Allan Jude wrote: On 2016-04-20 01:12, Daniel Eischen wrote: For one of our Solaris 11 boxes, which also serves as a VNC thin client server and NFS server, we have: [sol11] $ pkg list | wc -l 968 That server includes the gnome desktop, firefox, thunderbird, perl,

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

On 2016-04-20 01:12, Daniel Eischen wrote: > On Tue, 19 Apr 2016, Russell L. Carter wrote: >> >> What is missing from this debate is some perspective from the POV of >> actually existing packaging systems. I've been maintaining >> debian-stable + debian-testing systems for over 15 years. The

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

On Wed, 20 Apr 2016, Julian Elischer wrote: my problem with 400 packages is that is is hard to decide what you are actually running.. or is it FreeBSD 11? is it FreeBSD 10.95342453? you have no way to tell exactly what you have without comparing all the packages to a known list. uname

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

On Tue, 19 Apr 2016, Russell L. Carter wrote: What is missing from this debate is some perspective from the POV of actually existing packaging systems. I've been maintaining debian-stable + debian-testing systems for over 15 years. The number of packaging glitches I've had I can count on one

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

On 20/04/2016 11:41 AM, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: On 04/19/16 20:15, Warner Losh wrote: On Apr 19, 2016, at 4:12 PM, Matthew Grooms wrote: On 4/19/2016 3:09 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: As far as I know, nobody is taking the source code or the Makefiles away, so if

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

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 05:37:00AM +0300, dan_partelly wrote: > Year after year you hear about new GsoC projects, then nothing. I find > it hard to believe that none of those actually produced any useful code. The goal of GSoC is to introduce new people to FreeBSD more than it is to produce

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

> > "I've given your response all the consideration that I think it's due. > Please have > a nice day." Thank you, Warner. Knowing you did, brings warm feelings in my hearth. Please have a nice day. ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list

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

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 07:15:22AM +0300, dan_partelly wrote: > On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 04:07:11 +, Glen Barber wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 06:59:38AM +0300, dan_partelly wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > Sadly the tenor and tone of the discussion isn’t one where progress > is

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

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 9:59 PM, dan_partelly wrote: > > > > > Sadly the tenor and tone of the discussion isn’t one where progress is > > made. The tone has been a bit toxic and demanding, which grinds people > into > > dust, rather than motivating them to fix things. You

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

On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 04:07:11 +, Glen Barber wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 06:59:38AM +0300, dan_partelly wrote: >> >> > >> > Sadly the tenor and tone of the discussion isn’t one where progress is >> > made. The tone has been a bit toxic and demanding, which grinds

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

On 04/19/16 21:07, Glen Barber wrote: On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 06:59:38AM +0300, dan_partelly wrote: Sadly the tenor and tone of the discussion isn’t one where progress is made. The tone has been a bit toxic and demanding, which grinds people into dust, rather than motivating them to fix

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

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 06:59:38AM +0300, dan_partelly wrote: > > > > > Sadly the tenor and tone of the discussion isn’t one where progress is > > made. The tone has been a bit toxic and demanding, which grinds people > into > > dust, rather than motivating them to fix things. You might call it

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

> > Sadly the tenor and tone of the discussion isn’t one where progress is > made. The tone has been a bit toxic and demanding, which grinds people into > dust, rather than motivating them to fix things. You might call it a > discussion, but it reads to me more as a bunch of angry villagers

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

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 09:15:47PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote: > > > On Apr 19, 2016, at 4:12 PM, Matthew Grooms wrote: > > > > On 4/19/2016 3:09 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > >> As far as I know, nobody is taking the source code or the Makefiles > >> away, so if somebody

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

On 04/19/16 20:15, Warner Losh wrote: On Apr 19, 2016, at 4:12 PM, Matthew Grooms wrote: On 4/19/2016 3:09 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: As far as I know, nobody is taking the source code or the Makefiles away, so if somebody doesn't like the system being distributed with

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

> On Apr 19, 2016, at 4:12 PM, Matthew Grooms wrote: > > On 4/19/2016 3:09 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> As far as I know, nobody is taking the source code or the Makefiles >> away, so if somebody doesn't like the system being distributed with >> pkg, they can very well

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

On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 20:09:30 +, "Poul-Henning Kamp" wrote: > As far as I know, nobody is taking the source code or the Makefiles > away, so if somebody doesn't like the system being distributed with > pkg, they can very well roll their own. > > It's nice to see the level

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

On 4/19/16 1:09 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: As far as I know, nobody is taking the source code or the Makefiles away, so if somebody doesn't like the system being distributed with pkg, they can very well roll their own. It's nice to see the level of enthusiasm the FreeBSD project can muster,

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

On 19 Apr 2016, at 19:42, Matthew Grooms wrote: I suspect that most of the negative reactions people are having is due to the line being blurred between the base system and everything else. Historically there has always been a clear distinction. By packaging base and throwing it in with

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

On 4/19/2016 3:09 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: As far as I know, nobody is taking the source code or the Makefiles away, so if somebody doesn't like the system being distributed with pkg, they can very well roll their own. It's nice to see the level of enthusiasm the FreeBSD project can muster,

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

I am sorry to maybe sound like an old grudge here, but can somebody take a sweep at the bug reports filled against ports-mgt/pkg in the last year or so? Packaging base system is surely challenging and exciting task, and great bikesheed topic too, but there are lot of critical bugs in the code that

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

* Adrian Chadd [160419 22:36]: > It's cool. I have positive and negative reactions, and I'm totally > happy to let people try it out at a larger scale and learn from > mistakes. right, thats what we have CURRENT for. Instead of discussing all the things that could

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

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: > > > On 04/19/16 13:26, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> >> >> In message <1461096962.1232.32.ca...@freebsd.org>, Ian Lepore writes: >> >>> Oh yeah, now I remember: Because in freebsd, design is decided by a

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

On 04/19/16 at 01:36P, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: > > > On 04/19/16 13:26, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > > > In message <1461096962.1232.32.ca...@freebsd.org>, Ian Lepore writes: > > > >> Oh yeah, now I remember: Because in freebsd, design is decided by a > >> race to commit rather than by

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

On 04/19/16 13:26, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: In message <1461096962.1232.32.ca...@freebsd.org>, Ian Lepore writes: Oh yeah, now I remember: Because in freebsd, design is decided by a race to commit rather than by discussion. No, that's not it. It is because code talks much louder

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

Nathan Whitehorn wrote: Thanks, Roger. That seems perfectly reasonable. I'm not sure that goal is really met by having 800 packages, though, or at least I see no particular gain relative to a handful (where things like OpenSSL or sendmail would be discrete things). (Almost) every single

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

On Tuesday, April 19, 2016, Adrian Chadd wrote: > It's cool. I have positive and negative reactions, and I'm totally > happy to let people try it out at a larger scale and learn from > mistakes. > > Because, honestly - fuck it, we've been behind for too long. We need >

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

It's cool. I have positive and negative reactions, and I'm totally happy to let people try it out at a larger scale and learn from mistakes. Because, honestly - fuck it, we've been behind for too long. We need more mature tools and knowledge with this. The irony of course is the people rolling

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

In message <1461096962.1232.32.ca...@freebsd.org>, Ian Lepore writes: >Oh yeah, now I remember: Because in freebsd, design is decided by a >race to commit rather than by discussion. No, that's not it. It is because code talks much louder than words. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX

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

Hi! > I don't see anybody, who say "remove this packaging code, it is all > completely wrong, BS, whatever". All objections are against mechanical > splitting base to 700+ packages, not against packaged base per se. I also run a bunch of boxes, and I do not have a problem with 700+ base

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

On 19.04.2016 23:10, K. Macy wrote: I don't like to see, as some participants of this thread write their messages as if somebody in this thread are against packaging base with pkg. I don't see anybody, who say "remove this packaging code, it is all completely wrong, BS, whatever". All

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

On Tue, 2016-04-19 at 20:09 +, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > As far as I know, nobody is taking the source code or the Makefiles > away, so if somebody doesn't like the system being distributed with > pkg, they can very well roll their own. > > It's nice to see the level of enthusiasm the

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

On Tuesday, April 19, 2016, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > As far as I know, nobody is taking the source code or the Makefiles > away, so if somebody doesn't like the system being distributed with > pkg, they can very well roll their own. > > It's nice to see the level of

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

As far as I know, nobody is taking the source code or the Makefiles away, so if somebody doesn't like the system being distributed with pkg, they can very well roll their own. It's nice to see the level of enthusiasm the FreeBSD project can muster, I just wish it wasn't always enthusiasm for

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

On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 20:18:40 +0300, Lev Serebryakov wrote: > On 19.04.2016 19:28, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: > > > 3. Have ~10 meta packages that just depend on sets of the 755 packages > > and hide the internal details. This gives the user experience of (1) > > with the

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

On 04/19/16 11:22, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: On 04/19/16 10:55, Roger Marquis wrote: Please, consider ops and admins, who must support old installations, often made by other, not-reachable, people, and stuff like this, Ops and admins such as myself are exactly the ones who will benefit most

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

On 04/19/16 10:55, Roger Marquis wrote: Please, consider ops and admins, who must support old installations, often made by other, not-reachable, people, and stuff like this, Ops and admins such as myself are exactly the ones who will benefit most from base packages. Being able run to: 1)

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

Please, consider ops and admins, who must support old installations, often made by other, not-reachable, people, and stuff like this, Ops and admins such as myself are exactly the ones who will benefit most from base packages. Being able run to: 1) 'pkg audit' and see that base ssl has a

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

On 19.04.2016 19:36, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > Why is this even happening in email? If folks want "the right solution" > then why aren't they submitting patches or pull requests to the pkg repo > (or where ever this is stored?). This seems counter-intuitive, but > really actually should be how

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

On 19.04.2016 19:28, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: > 3. Have ~10 meta packages that just depend on sets of the 755 packages > and hide the internal details. This gives the user experience of (1) > with the implementation of (2), and is marginally more complex than either. How does it help Slawa with

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

I don't think we need 100% consensus to proceed on anything and if I've learned anything from 20 years in this community is that forcing that issue does the community a huge disservice as well as turn off the code submitters. See my thread on the missed opportunities in threads, or if you

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

Well, this discussion has gone pretty far off of the rails. I am of course happy to make a patch that cuts this down to 10 packages, but that's not something that should be committed without agreement -- which we obviously don't have. It would have been good to have had meaningful discussion

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

On 19.04.2016 17:33, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > I am also confident that we will very easily sort out how to make > "micropackages" or some such mechanism within at most 3 months after the > code lands. The reason why is because I already see some excellent > proposals for such mechanisms in this

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

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 08:18:48AM -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > 1) Graciously and rapidly accept steps forward and then contribute to > them. Anything else leaves you stagnant and worse for wear. > 2) Simple over complex. > 3) If something someone else did is working for someone, then copy

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

On 18.04.2016 22:14, Glen Barber 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 means that updates can

  1   2   >