Stuart Henderson <s...@spacehopper.org> wrote: > On 2019/07/10 17:02, Ingo Schwarze wrote: > > Hi Theo, > > > > Theo de Raadt wrote on Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 09:23:25AM -0600: > > > Klemens Nanni <k...@openbsd.org> wrote: > > > > >> I think sysupgrade should, if at all, use the same semantics as the > > >> installer. That is, something like `sysugprade -S '-* b*'" to upgrade > > >> nothing but kernels and base. > > >> > > >> Such options offer great potential for users to shoot themselves in the > > >> foot by doing partial upgrades; I am not really sold on the idea, yet. > > > > > From time to time I consider merging all the sets into baseXX.tgz. > > > > That sounds reasonable to me. Having separate sets was probably > > useful in the 1980ies, but nowadays, it provides little benefit in > > a general-purpose operating system, and getting rid of it would > > reduce maintenance effort and recurring confusion when people shoot > > themselves in the foot by not installings parts of the operating > > system they actually want to use, then asking questions why their > > system isn't working as expected. > > > > By the way, on amd64, merging in game65 would make base65 1.3% larger, > > man65 3.5%, and even comp65 only 35%. > > > > It seems similar to avoiding flavours in ports if those flavours > > provide little benefit: KISS. > > > > Then again, merging the sets causes some work and churn and certainly > > isn't an urgent task, but eventually and at a convenient time, i > > expect that it should and will happen. > > > > Yours, > > Ingo > > > > Having them split does at least give us some reasonably simple > way to get around the far too small /usr partition that disklabel > autopartitioning used to use.
However time moves on, and systems should eventually be reinstalled since too much has changed. The problem with the many-sets approach is the large number of people who believe they should push that button because it they see it as an invitation.
