On Fri, Aug 8, 2025 at 4:18 AM Colin Percival <cperc...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On 8/7/25 18:20, vermaden wrote: > > OK, Colin Percival just announced 15.0-PRERELEASE - yet the PKGBASE concept > > - besides 'kinda working' - does not holds to the POLA principle at all - > > and if anyone will chose to use PKGBASE instead of 'classic' install the > > 'pkg delete -af' will not only delete all the third party packages but will > > also WIPE almost ENTIRE BASE SYSTEM of FreeBSD ... this is not unacceptable > > to say the least. > > POLA is inherently subjective; what astonishes one person might be exactly > what another person expects. In this particular case, while someone might > indeed be astonished that "forcibly delete everything" deletes everything, > someone else could well be astonished if "pkg delete -f clang" doesn't in > fact delete clang.
Not really. So far "the FreeBSD standard" kept things "similar" for over 30 years. If we traveled back/forward in time we would still use the same approach to configure and run stuff. Maybe except pkg-add was replaced with pkg, but still all locations are the same, configuration files format, ports build, etc. "Base" is the cornerstone of FreeBSD and its most widely known unique feature. It is like coming back to familiar stable work place, where all things does not change on a daily basis, or going to a different place and having the same familiar setup with nothing missing. There was always clear separation of "base system" and "userland". This meant all FreeBSD base release X.Y would have exactly the same predictable behavior for everyone. This is not "subjective", this is "coherence", this is self-compatibility, 1+1=2. If "if "pkg delete -f clang" doesn't in fact delete clang" then we go full Microsoft :-( > > My 'vote' here does not changed. > > > > Lets keep pkg(8) for third party packages with: > > - /etc/pkg > > - /usr/local/etc/pkg > > - /var/db/pkg > > > > Lets have pkgbase(8) for FreeBSD Base System PKGBASE with: > > - /etc/pkgbase > > - /usr/local/etc/pkgbase > > - /var/db/pkgbase > > I would like this idea, except for one wrinkle: I don't think it would work. > In particular, packages installed from ports might depend on packages from > the base system, so having a single tool which knows about both is necessary. This statement is extremely dangerous. It touches clue of this discussion. It seems to reveal planning to totally break current FreeBSD design / architecture? So far "base" could work without "userland", provided consistent, coherent, and predictable working environment. Everyone had the same set of "base" tools where "userland" could be built on top, so every system could be different but had exactly the same base. I can see that "base" will not be coherent for everyone anymore. If ports start depending on base packages then circular dependencies will arise and this will be a Linux-like-mess, because there could be different versions of base packages for different port versions that will depend on different versions of base packages. Then all will be just a package and there will be no "coherent FreeBSD base" anymore right? Then 14-RELEASE will hit end-of-lie and people will be _forced_ to switch to 15-RELEASE or move away to different BSD. This sounds like FreeBSD is going full Linux :-( People already report their doubts and fears, backed by real world evidence. Do we go hey Linux Y was released, so whole world will now have to rebuild all their release packages because these were built for Linux X, and then people need to just get that package T from repo Z not from repo Q because this is not part of Y and it was there in X but Q changed its API? I hope we don't go to that moving sands area. I hope its more like hey you will finally be able to run next release on that old router with 2MB of Flash and 8MB of RAM and it will work better than Linux plus you will get all fresh packages and features with security fixes. This is how we see "progress", by getting new features in a simple familiar fashion, not by overcomplicating things that makes them unusable. I can understand that pkgbase can have its benefits, this is why it was invented and being worked on, but its design should follow well established FreeBSD standard that assures self-compatibility, so people in 10 years will still have their own favorite familiar working environment that comes from clear "base" and "userland" separation. This is still possible right? -- CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
