Re: pkgng 1.0 release schedule, and HEAD switch to pkgng by default schedule
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 8/22/2012 5:27 AM, Ivan Voras wrote: > On 21/08/2012 22:15, Doug Barton wrote: > >> And in this case, it doesn't matter how awesome the new tools >> are, they are a MAJOR paradigm shift for how users interact with >> ports, and we are > > Unless I've missed something, Yes, you've missed quite a lot actually. You really need to follow the discussion on ports@ if you want to stay up to speed. > pkgng is actually *zero* paradigm shift for users familiar with > *ports*, and here's why: people using ports can and will continue > to use ports the way they are used to. AFAIK, the infrastructure > which registers port installation is already there and there are > also patches for portupgrade and portmaster which make them > interact nicely with the new package database. For users who only have very limited interaction with the ports tree this is probably true. But what we're seeing is that a lot of users (especially those with larger installations, and re-packagers like PC-BSD) have more than simple/limited ports interaction. For those users the change is going to take time, sometimes significant time to adjust to. > The only important aspect of this is that the actual package > database format changed (IMO, immensely for the better) and there > are several other port management utilities which may need to be > changed. People who got used to manually altering the old > text-based package database will learn either not to do it anymore, > since whole classes of errors have now become impossible to have, > or learn how to do it with the new format. > > Can you explain what you mean as the "paradigm shift" for ports > users here? You just described it. And I certainly hope that the change is indeed for the better, however that has yet to be demonstrated on a large scale. I think shifting the default for 10 is going to give us more data on this point, which is a good thing. But making it mandatory in 10 is premature. > OTOH, people using *binary packages* (the very few and miserable > users that they are since the old binary package infrastructure has > sucked for the last decade or so), will get their world turned > upside down, but for the better, and hopefully grow in numbers. No argument from me on the sucking, but the number of users using the existing packages is not "few." There are more consumers of the FreeBSD-distributed packages than you probably realize. But more importantly there are a LOT of enterprise users who roll their own package infrastructure. I have been trying to get across to some of our src-centric Illuminati for years just how valuable/important the ports are to the FreeBSD Operating _System_. For better or worse I think that this change is going to bear out the truth of what I (and others of course) have been saying. Doug - -- I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. And I will not let what I cannot do interfere with what I can do. -- Edward Everett Hale, (1822 - 1909) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (MingW32) iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJQNp/WAAoJEFzGhvEaGryEpIkH/AqfqLIugyLDWv6ehzaKhne8 pGCIGL6bS6naRzpvMu+hzA+eEg/ZnAp5tOjC2e0qowi50e5fF8CKEt11eZKOkyXA FPQX00kX3KTKMyHd6SEsp6AL5FAihBASN9rVs3BGqBXge/ViI9HIDRBKpQW+11Yd tH3wdCSfflI3UpteyJFFumIxITuTvAhYPBzSFEoThNAmf58qJWTNx8zW5jS3/lis OnCWApouUfYOKdimbpRbguYiAnuX7o/Vrwvc9XQ6awsATDWNSPgf4kgaPvwnp9HH eUlFtsNInlFMT9pwQhS2oQtIccx0BYsCQIXkCNQFIjddvRuUeVNjB5Vdqq7NuLk= =kUKF -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: pkgng 1.0 release schedule, and HEAD switch to pkgng by default schedule
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:52:43AM -0700, Kevin Oberman wrote: > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 7:09 AM, Warner Losh wrote: > > > > On Aug 21, 2012, at 7:58 PM, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: > > > >> On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Doug Barton wrote: > >> > >>> I don't think we have ever done a complete replacement of major > >>> infrastructure in one release. > >> > >> You mean like sysinstall can be used as an installer on 9 that would > >> do something meaningful with the current infrastructure we provide? > > > > You understood my oblique sysinstall reference... The 'can't do it in one > > release' is a red herring. The current package system is by no means as > > good as sysinstall was before it was replaced. The new one is much better > > and deserves a shot of 'replace in one' if it proves to be ready. Anything > > contrary to that is just obstructionism. > > I don't agree. I know that I am not the only one who uses the pkgdb in > internal scripts. While getting rid of pkg_* will be a wonderful thing > and, for most of the systems I deal with the switch will happen very > soon, a couple will need major re-working to replace the use of the > pkgdb. Since these are systems that I usually run either the latest > STABLE (RELENG_9 at this time) or CURRENT, this would prevent moving > to CURRENT or 10-STABLE if I can't do so and still have the option of > sticking with the old system for a while. This is especially true for > 1.0, until things like adding SVN revision and (hopefully) options to > the DB to make working with a combination of packages and ports > reasonable. I can't imagine EVER getting away from building some > things from source using ports at any time. > > Yes, I understand that getting rid of pkg_ will allow things to be > done that will be difficult (impossible?) to retrofit into pkg_*, but > this is a HUGE change for most admins, much bigger than the sysinstall > change as it will mostly impact on systems currently running FreeBSD > where sysinstall did not. > > Please, please be very careful about pulling the life support plug on pkg_*. > -- > R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer > E-mail: kob6...@gmail.com > ___ > freebsd-po...@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" That is the reason why I updated today the pkg_install ports so that people will be able to keep an up to date pkg_* tools for the time the ports tree will support it, (meaning at least EOL of 9.1 and EOL of 8.3) regards, Bapt pgp38lqKsyj9p.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: pkgng 1.0 release schedule, and HEAD switch to pkgng by default schedule
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 7:09 AM, Warner Losh wrote: > > On Aug 21, 2012, at 7:58 PM, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: > >> On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Doug Barton wrote: >> >>> I don't think we have ever done a complete replacement of major >>> infrastructure in one release. >> >> You mean like sysinstall can be used as an installer on 9 that would >> do something meaningful with the current infrastructure we provide? > > You understood my oblique sysinstall reference... The 'can't do it in one > release' is a red herring. The current package system is by no means as good > as sysinstall was before it was replaced. The new one is much better and > deserves a shot of 'replace in one' if it proves to be ready. Anything > contrary to that is just obstructionism. I don't agree. I know that I am not the only one who uses the pkgdb in internal scripts. While getting rid of pkg_* will be a wonderful thing and, for most of the systems I deal with the switch will happen very soon, a couple will need major re-working to replace the use of the pkgdb. Since these are systems that I usually run either the latest STABLE (RELENG_9 at this time) or CURRENT, this would prevent moving to CURRENT or 10-STABLE if I can't do so and still have the option of sticking with the old system for a while. This is especially true for 1.0, until things like adding SVN revision and (hopefully) options to the DB to make working with a combination of packages and ports reasonable. I can't imagine EVER getting away from building some things from source using ports at any time. Yes, I understand that getting rid of pkg_ will allow things to be done that will be difficult (impossible?) to retrofit into pkg_*, but this is a HUGE change for most admins, much bigger than the sysinstall change as it will mostly impact on systems currently running FreeBSD where sysinstall did not. Please, please be very careful about pulling the life support plug on pkg_*. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer E-mail: kob6...@gmail.com ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: pkgng 1.0 release schedule, and HEAD switch to pkgng by default schedule
On Aug 21, 2012, at 7:58 PM, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: > On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Doug Barton wrote: > >> I don't think we have ever done a complete replacement of major >> infrastructure in one release. > > You mean like sysinstall can be used as an installer on 9 that would > do something meaningful with the current infrastructure we provide? You understood my oblique sysinstall reference... The 'can't do it in one release' is a red herring. The current package system is by no means as good as sysinstall was before it was replaced. The new one is much better and deserves a shot of 'replace in one' if it proves to be ready. Anything contrary to that is just obstructionism. Warner ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: pkgng 1.0 release schedule, and HEAD switch to pkgng by default schedule
On 21/08/2012 22:15, Doug Barton wrote: > And in this case, it doesn't matter how awesome the new tools are, they > are a MAJOR paradigm shift for how users interact with ports, and we are Unless I've missed something, pkgng is actually *zero* paradigm shift for users familiar with *ports*, and here's why: people using ports can and will continue to use ports the way they are used to. AFAIK, the infrastructure which registers port installation is already there and there are also patches for portupgrade and portmaster which make them interact nicely with the new package database. The only important aspect of this is that the actual package database format changed (IMO, immensely for the better) and there are several other port management utilities which may need to be changed. People who got used to manually altering the old text-based package database will learn either not to do it anymore, since whole classes of errors have now become impossible to have, or learn how to do it with the new format. Can you explain what you mean as the "paradigm shift" for ports users here? OTOH, people using *binary packages* (the very few and miserable users that they are since the old binary package infrastructure has sucked for the last decade or so), will get their world turned upside down, but for the better, and hopefully grow in numbers. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: pkgng 1.0 release schedule, and HEAD switch to pkgng by default schedule
On 8/21/2012 6:58 PM, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: > On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Doug Barton wrote: > >> I don't think we have ever done a complete replacement of major >> infrastructure in one release. > > You mean like sysinstall can be used as an installer on 9 that would > do something meaningful with the current infrastructure we provide? Given the number of users who complain when sysinstall breaks in 9, I'd say yes. Not to mention that sysinstall is a good example of something that we deprecated in one release and removed in the following release. Furthermore, I don't think of the installer as nearly as critical as the ports collection. Yes, it is important, clearly. But it's something that is likely to happen only once in the lifetime of a system, as opposed to the numerous times that users will interact with the ports. Not to mention all of the enterprise users who bypass it altogether. Aside from the installer part of sysinstall, the post-install config portion has been taken over by bsdconfig. So in HEAD you have 2 new tools that are mandatory that fulfill sysinstall's old role; and in 9 you have those same 2 new tools which are the defaults, but optional. That's exactly how it is supposed to work. Finally, the thing that we have to keep in mind is how different the ports tree is from anything else in the base. The infrastructure of the ports has to support all versions of FreeBSD. So we have to be extra cautious about deprecating things. Of course the upside of pkg is that it (properly) lives in the ports tree itself, which will make innovation much easier in a few years. Doug -- I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. And I will not let what I cannot do interfere with what I can do. -- Edward Everett Hale, (1822 - 1909) ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: pkgng 1.0 release schedule, and HEAD switch to pkgng by default schedule
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 02:43:13PM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote: > > What Doug mentioned (and I don't think was really considered, but > is valid) would break people that use pkg_* outside of ports. I know > of at least two instances where this would be the case (one case that > uses pkg_* directly, and another case that uses libpkg from pkg_* > 0-o...). As to the old libpkg, it only existed for little over a year and only in HEAD and was even removed from there over a year ago, and the commit message clearly states that it should not be used. OTOH, for those using it, the only alternative for them is probably pkgng which is only now turning stable. Erwin -- Erwin Lansinghttp://droso.dk er...@freebsd.orghttp:// www.FreeBSD.org ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: pkgng 1.0 release schedule, and HEAD switch to pkgng by default schedule
On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Doug Barton wrote: I don't think we have ever done a complete replacement of major infrastructure in one release. You mean like sysinstall can be used as an installer on 9 that would do something meaningful with the current infrastructure we provide? -- Bjoern A. Zeeb You have to have visions! Stop bit received. Insert coin for new address family. ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: pkgng 1.0 release schedule, and HEAD switch to pkgng by default schedule
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Doug Barton wrote: > On 8/21/2012 1:08 PM, Warner Losh wrote: >> >> On Aug 21, 2012, at 1:51 PM, Doug Barton wrote: >> >>> On 8/21/2012 12:42 PM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:38:04PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > On 8/21/2012 12:05 PM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >> 1/ if it fits the schedule: get rid of pkg_* tools in >> current to be able to have a fully pkgng only 10-RELEASE > > I think it would fit better with historic precedents to make > pkg optional (but default on) in 10, and mandatory in 11. As > stated before, I'm fine with removing pkg_* tools from 10 if > there is robust support for them in the ports tree. > > I know you're excited about this project, but let's not lose > sight of how big a change this is, and how important ports are > to the project. > That was what "if it fits the schedule" was about. >>> >>> I think what I'm trying to say, ever so politely, is that what >>> you're suggesting isn't even an option, so it shouldn't be >>> discussed. >> >> If you are fine with removing them if there's robust support, how can >> you also be suggesting that it is impossible and shouldn't be talked >> about? > > Those address different parts of the problem. Making pkg mandatory in 10 > is different from where the old pkg_* tools end up. The command line > tools are just the tip of the iceberg, there are a lot of interactions > behind the scenes. > >> Personally, I think we should handle this the same way that other >> replacement tools have been done, which is close to what Baptiste has >> proposed. If the new tools are totally awesome, we have replaced old >> tools. > > I don't think we have ever done a complete replacement of major > infrastructure in one release. The traditional model has been to > deprecate in one release, remove in the next. > > And in this case, it doesn't matter how awesome the new tools are, they > are a MAJOR paradigm shift for how users interact with ports, and we are > going to have a lot of users who take years to transition their > installed base. No matter how much we may want to move fast on this, it > just isn't going to be possible. What Doug mentioned (and I don't think was really considered, but is valid) would break people that use pkg_* outside of ports. I know of at least two instances where this would be the case (one case that uses pkg_* directly, and another case that uses libpkg from pkg_* 0-o...). I know it's delaying the inevitable (pkg_* is going to go away), but we shouldn't count our chickens before they've hatched as far as how pkgng needs to be used and how things might change. The optional in 8/9/10, mandatory in 11 proposal seems very sane and it allows people to get things worked out properly without too many headaches. Thanks! -Garrett ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: pkgng 1.0 release schedule, and HEAD switch to pkgng by default schedule
On 8/21/2012 1:08 PM, Warner Losh wrote: > > On Aug 21, 2012, at 1:51 PM, Doug Barton wrote: > >> On 8/21/2012 12:42 PM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:38:04PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: On 8/21/2012 12:05 PM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > 1/ if it fits the schedule: get rid of pkg_* tools in > current to be able to have a fully pkgng only 10-RELEASE I think it would fit better with historic precedents to make pkg optional (but default on) in 10, and mandatory in 11. As stated before, I'm fine with removing pkg_* tools from 10 if there is robust support for them in the ports tree. I know you're excited about this project, but let's not lose sight of how big a change this is, and how important ports are to the project. >>> That was what "if it fits the schedule" was about. >> >> I think what I'm trying to say, ever so politely, is that what >> you're suggesting isn't even an option, so it shouldn't be >> discussed. > > If you are fine with removing them if there's robust support, how can > you also be suggesting that it is impossible and shouldn't be talked > about? Those address different parts of the problem. Making pkg mandatory in 10 is different from where the old pkg_* tools end up. The command line tools are just the tip of the iceberg, there are a lot of interactions behind the scenes. > Personally, I think we should handle this the same way that other > replacement tools have been done, which is close to what Baptiste has > proposed. If the new tools are totally awesome, we have replaced old > tools. I don't think we have ever done a complete replacement of major infrastructure in one release. The traditional model has been to deprecate in one release, remove in the next. And in this case, it doesn't matter how awesome the new tools are, they are a MAJOR paradigm shift for how users interact with ports, and we are going to have a lot of users who take years to transition their installed base. No matter how much we may want to move fast on this, it just isn't going to be possible. > If the new tools are good, but don't cover the older users, > we develop along size. Yes, this is precisely what I'm saying. Sorry if I wasn't clear. -- I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. And I will not let what I cannot do interfere with what I can do. -- Edward Everett Hale, (1822 - 1909) ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: pkgng 1.0 release schedule, and HEAD switch to pkgng by default schedule
On Aug 21, 2012, at 1:51 PM, Doug Barton wrote: > On 8/21/2012 12:42 PM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:38:04PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: >>> On 8/21/2012 12:05 PM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: 1/ if it fits the schedule: get rid of pkg_* tools in current to be able to have a fully pkgng only 10-RELEASE >>> >>> I think it would fit better with historic precedents to make pkg >>> optional (but default on) in 10, and mandatory in 11. As stated >>> before, I'm fine with removing pkg_* tools from 10 if there is >>> robust support for them in the ports tree. >>> >>> I know you're excited about this project, but let's not lose >>> sight of how big a change this is, and how important ports are to >>> the project. >>> >> That was what "if it fits the schedule" was about. > > I think what I'm trying to say, ever so politely, is that what you're > suggesting isn't even an option, so it shouldn't be discussed. If you are fine with removing them if there's robust support, how can you also be suggesting that it is impossible and shouldn't be talked about? Personally, I think we should handle this the same way that other replacement tools have been done, which is close to what Baptiste has proposed. If the new tools are totally awesome, we have replaced old tools. If the new tools are good, but don't cover the older users, we develop along size. If they are lame, but somehow get committed anyway, we take 18 years to replace them with bsdinstall. Warner ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: pkgng 1.0 release schedule, and HEAD switch to pkgng by default schedule
On 8/21/2012 12:42 PM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:38:04PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: >> On 8/21/2012 12:05 PM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >>> 1/ if it fits the schedule: get rid of pkg_* tools in current >>> to be able to have a fully pkgng only 10-RELEASE >> >> I think it would fit better with historic precedents to make pkg >> optional (but default on) in 10, and mandatory in 11. As stated >> before, I'm fine with removing pkg_* tools from 10 if there is >> robust support for them in the ports tree. >> >> I know you're excited about this project, but let's not lose >> sight of how big a change this is, and how important ports are to >> the project. >> > That was what "if it fits the schedule" was about. I think what I'm trying to say, ever so politely, is that what you're suggesting isn't even an option, so it shouldn't be discussed. -- I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. And I will not let what I cannot do interfere with what I can do. -- Edward Everett Hale, (1822 - 1909) ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: pkgng 1.0 release schedule, and HEAD switch to pkgng by default schedule
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:38:04PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > On 8/21/2012 12:05 PM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > 1/ if it fits the schedule: get rid of pkg_* tools in current to be > > able to have a fully pkgng only 10-RELEASE > > I think it would fit better with historic precedents to make pkg > optional (but default on) in 10, and mandatory in 11. As stated > before, I'm fine with removing pkg_* tools from 10 if there is robust > support for them in the ports tree. > > I know you're excited about this project, but let's not lose sight of > how big a change this is, and how important ports are to the project. > That was what "if it fits the schedule" was about. regards, Bapt pgpWdDom1E1Zv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: pkgng 1.0 release schedule, and HEAD switch to pkgng by default schedule
On 8/21/2012 12:05 PM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > 1/ if it fits the schedule: get rid of pkg_* tools in current to be > able to have a fully pkgng only 10-RELEASE I think it would fit better with historic precedents to make pkg optional (but default on) in 10, and mandatory in 11. As stated before, I'm fine with removing pkg_* tools from 10 if there is robust support for them in the ports tree. I know you're excited about this project, but let's not lose sight of how big a change this is, and how important ports are to the project. Doug -- I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. And I will not let what I cannot do interfere with what I can do. -- Edward Everett Hale, (1822 - 1909) ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: pkgng 1.0 release schedule, and HEAD switch to pkgng by default schedule
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:47:36AM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Doug Barton wrote: > > On 8/21/2012 6:46 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > >> I would also like to just remove pkg_* tools from RELENG_10 if that fits > >> the > >> schedule. > > > > Um, no? > > ... > > > What _would_ be useful is what should have been done many years ago when > > it was first suggested: Move the pkg_* tools to ports. > > It already exists -- it's just out of date / crufty: > > $ make describe > pkg_install-20090902|/usr/ports/ports-mgmt/pkg_install|/usr/local|FreeBSD > -STABLE version of the package > tools|/usr/ports/ports-mgmt/pkg_install/pkg-descr|port...@freebsd.org|ports-mgmt||http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/usr.sbin/pkg_install/ > > > It's too late for 9.1 already, but if you made that change today in > > HEAD, and after 9.1 (but before 8.4) you MFC it to stable/[89], then you > > could theoretically make pkg mandatory after 9.1 EOLs. > > > > To make my point more clear, the ports tree has to support the last > > release to ship with pkg_* tools in the base throughout its lifetime. To > > do anything else would be be a massive POLA violation. > > Agreed. > Thanks, > -Garrett Let's rephrase the plan: 1/ if it fits the schedule: get rid of pkg_* tools in current to be able to have a fully pkgng only 10-RELEASE 2/ switch 9.2 (the ports tree) to pkgng (but keep pkg_* tools maybe drop them, but that is to be discussed to avoid POLA 3/ do the same for 8 once all of our supported release are fully pkgng aware and all the pkg_* release are EOLed, drop support for pkg_* tools from the ports tree. regards, Bapt pgpereAUAmDEE.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: pkgng 1.0 release schedule, and HEAD switch to pkgng by default schedule
On 8/21/2012 11:47 AM, Garrett Cooper wrote: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Doug Barton wrote: >> On 8/21/2012 6:46 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >>> I would also like to just remove pkg_* tools from RELENG_10 if that fits the >>> schedule. >> >> Um, no? > > ... > >> What _would_ be useful is what should have been done many years ago when >> it was first suggested: Move the pkg_* tools to ports. > > It already exists -- it's just out of date / crufty: Right ... I was using "move" as shorthand for several different ideas, including but not limited to the latest version of the code itself, robust support for the code going forward, the primary supported way of using pkg_*, etc. All of these ideas have been discussed in the past, so I was hoping to avoid having to re-discuss them. :) >> It's too late for 9.1 already, but if you made that change today in >> HEAD, and after 9.1 (but before 8.4) you MFC it to stable/[89], then you >> could theoretically make pkg mandatory after 9.1 EOLs. >> >> To make my point more clear, the ports tree has to support the last >> release to ship with pkg_* tools in the base throughout its lifetime. To >> do anything else would be be a massive POLA violation. > > Agreed. Great (and I saw Baptiste's response on this as well). Glad to hear that we're on the same page about something at least. :) -- I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. And I will not let what I cannot do interfere with what I can do. -- Edward Everett Hale, (1822 - 1909) ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: pkgng 1.0 release schedule, and HEAD switch to pkgng by default schedule
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Doug Barton wrote: > On 8/21/2012 6:46 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >> I would also like to just remove pkg_* tools from RELENG_10 if that fits the >> schedule. > > Um, no? ... > What _would_ be useful is what should have been done many years ago when > it was first suggested: Move the pkg_* tools to ports. It already exists -- it's just out of date / crufty: $ make describe pkg_install-20090902|/usr/ports/ports-mgmt/pkg_install|/usr/local|FreeBSD -STABLE version of the package tools|/usr/ports/ports-mgmt/pkg_install/pkg-descr|port...@freebsd.org|ports-mgmt||http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/usr.sbin/pkg_install/ > It's too late for 9.1 already, but if you made that change today in > HEAD, and after 9.1 (but before 8.4) you MFC it to stable/[89], then you > could theoretically make pkg mandatory after 9.1 EOLs. > > To make my point more clear, the ports tree has to support the last > release to ship with pkg_* tools in the base throughout its lifetime. To > do anything else would be be a massive POLA violation. Agreed. Thanks, -Garrett ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: pkgng 1.0 release schedule, and HEAD switch to pkgng by default schedule
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:17:36AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > On 8/21/2012 6:46 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > I would also like to just remove pkg_* tools from RELENG_10 if that fits the > > schedule. > > Um, no? > > Until pkg becomes mandatory (which can't happen for several years) the > pkg_* tools can't be removed altogether. > > What _would_ be useful is what should have been done many years ago when > it was first suggested: Move the pkg_* tools to ports. > > It's too late for 9.1 already, but if you made that change today in > HEAD, and after 9.1 (but before 8.4) you MFC it to stable/[89], then you > could theoretically make pkg mandatory after 9.1 EOLs. > > To make my point more clear, the ports tree has to support the last > release to ship with pkg_* tools in the base throughout its lifetime. To > do anything else would be be a massive POLA violation. > > Doug > > -- > > I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do > something. And I will not let what I cannot do interfere with what > I can do. > -- Edward Everett Hale, (1822 - 1909) that is what I meant of course, sorry if I badly said it at first Bapt pgpZV3bmiplJB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: pkgng 1.0 release schedule, and HEAD switch to pkgng by default schedule
On 8/21/2012 6:46 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > I would also like to just remove pkg_* tools from RELENG_10 if that fits the > schedule. Um, no? Until pkg becomes mandatory (which can't happen for several years) the pkg_* tools can't be removed altogether. What _would_ be useful is what should have been done many years ago when it was first suggested: Move the pkg_* tools to ports. It's too late for 9.1 already, but if you made that change today in HEAD, and after 9.1 (but before 8.4) you MFC it to stable/[89], then you could theoretically make pkg mandatory after 9.1 EOLs. To make my point more clear, the ports tree has to support the last release to ship with pkg_* tools in the base throughout its lifetime. To do anything else would be be a massive POLA violation. Doug -- I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. And I will not let what I cannot do interfere with what I can do. -- Edward Everett Hale, (1822 - 1909) ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: pkgng 1.0 release schedule, and HEAD switch to pkgng by default schedule
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 03:26:43PM +0200, Jeremie Le Hen wrote: > Hi Baptise, > > On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 09:43:13PM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > > > Since 1.0-rc6 release, everything looks ready for a final release of 1.0, > > I'll > > give more details on the release commit bit :) this is planned for 30th > > august > > 2012. > > > > Current was supposed to switch to pkgng by default today, it has been > > delayed > > until the nvidia-driver is fixed with pkgng. Thanksfully kwm@ and danfe@ has > > been working on this, and the situation should be fixed pretty soon. > > > > Please continue testing pkgng and reporting bugs, if you are new comers do > > not > > hesitate to ask question about pkgng so that we can improve documentation: > > > > The usual links about pkgng: > > - http://wiki.freebsd.org/pkgng > > - http://wiki.freebsd.org/PkgPrimer > > - https://github.com/pkgng/pkgng/blob/master/FAQ.md > > - http://people.freebsd.org/~bapt/pres-pkgng-bsdcan.pdf > > - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Hxq7AHZ27I > > First thank you and all who have worked to make this first release of > pkgng. This is a great milestone in FreeBSD history. > > Supposedly, pkgng will stay opt-in for RELENG_9 and will be the default > (opt-out?) on RELENG_10. During the upgrade from the old branch to the > new one, how do we ensure users will perform the required step > (basically, run pkg2ng) to switch their pkg database to pkgng? Will it > be a note in src/UPDATING and as well in the release notes? > Yes there will be a note in UPDATING, I'm also pondering modifying pkg_* tools to that they show up an advetisement about pkg_install being deprecated. I would also like to just remove pkg_* tools from RELENG_10 if that fits the schedule. regards, Bapt pgpPgG1EFaQcA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: pkgng 1.0 release schedule, and HEAD switch to pkgng by default schedule
Hi Baptise, On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 09:43:13PM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > Since 1.0-rc6 release, everything looks ready for a final release of 1.0, I'll > give more details on the release commit bit :) this is planned for 30th august > 2012. > > Current was supposed to switch to pkgng by default today, it has been delayed > until the nvidia-driver is fixed with pkgng. Thanksfully kwm@ and danfe@ has > been working on this, and the situation should be fixed pretty soon. > > Please continue testing pkgng and reporting bugs, if you are new comers do not > hesitate to ask question about pkgng so that we can improve documentation: > > The usual links about pkgng: > - http://wiki.freebsd.org/pkgng > - http://wiki.freebsd.org/PkgPrimer > - https://github.com/pkgng/pkgng/blob/master/FAQ.md > - http://people.freebsd.org/~bapt/pres-pkgng-bsdcan.pdf > - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Hxq7AHZ27I First thank you and all who have worked to make this first release of pkgng. This is a great milestone in FreeBSD history. Supposedly, pkgng will stay opt-in for RELENG_9 and will be the default (opt-out?) on RELENG_10. During the upgrade from the old branch to the new one, how do we ensure users will perform the required step (basically, run pkg2ng) to switch their pkg database to pkgng? Will it be a note in src/UPDATING and as well in the release notes? -- Jeremie Le Hen Scientists say the world is made up of Protons, Neutrons and Electrons. They forgot to mention Morons. ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: pkgng 1.0 release schedule, and HEAD switch to pkgng by default schedule
On 20/08/2012 21:43, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > Hi all, > > Since 1.0-rc6 release, everything looks ready for a final release of 1.0, I'll > give more details on the release commit bit :) this is planned for 30th august > 2012. Congratulations, it's great! :) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
