why 100 packages are evil

Here's a real example. I have n Centos servers. Cron, once or twice a day, updates our local cache of the yum repos. Then nagios comes along and flags 35 packages out of date. An hour later, management comes along asking questions about the security implications of those packages. An hour

Re: why 100 packages are evil

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 08:41:06PM -0700, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: > But the dependency base will be huge. Yet you fail to explain how. > Right now I can count on a very limited set of dependencies for > anything I ship as a 3rd party package. How is this different than the existing model? What

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: why 100 packages are evil

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 08:17:15PM -0700, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: > With freebsd-update, an announcement comes out that says 'update'!. So we > do. Move from 10.2-p11 to 10.2-p12. There is a very clear track record of > why and how this happened. > > What will be the new update frequency with

Re: why 100 packages are evil

Same as it is now for releases. Packages will be available for SAs/ENs. There is no intention to change this model. I get that. But the dependency base will be huge. Right now I can count on a very limited set of dependencies for anything I ship as a 3rd party package. Doing that for n>100

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, 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: why 100 packages are evil

On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 03:21:38AM +, Glen Barber wrote: > On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 08:17:15PM -0700, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: > > With freebsd-update, an announcement comes out that says 'update'!. So we > > do. Move from 10.2-p11 to 10.2-p12. There is a very clear track record of > > why

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: devd limitations -- was [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

> Ideally, when the automounter daemon starts, it should > connect to devd via an IPC channel and request notification of the specific > events that it wants I was under the impression that devd.seqpacket.pipe accomplishes this. Am I right in assuming that the issue is that devd forwards ALL

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 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)

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)

> > 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)

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

new content: [ buildworld fixed ] now network drops out daily

- Start Forwarded Message - Sent: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 14:10:40 -0700 (PDT) From: "Jeffrey Bouquet" To: "current" Subject: Re: Re: Installworld, BW, IK fixed, here are the in > out loader.conf lines On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 13:29:59 -0700

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)

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)

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)

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: new content: [ buildworld fixed ] now network drops out daily

On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 06:22:04 -0700 (PDT), "Jeffrey Bouquet" wrote: > > > - Start Forwarded Message - > Sent: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 14:10:40 -0700 (PDT) > From: "Jeffrey Bouquet" > To: "current" > Subject: Re:

Re: Heads up

On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 16:42:33 -0600 Warner Losh wrote: > The CAM I/O scheduler has been committed to current. This work is > described in > https://people.freebsd.org/~imp/bsdcan2015/iosched-v3.pdf though the > default scheduler doesn't change the default (old) behavior. > > One