From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Tue Apr 19 22:19:16 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74320B1423B for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 22:19:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mgrooms@shrew.net) Received: from mx2.shrew.net (mx2.shrew.net [38.97.5.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2BAE11EF6 for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 22:19:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mgrooms@shrew.net) Received: from mail.shrew.net (mail.shrew.prv [10.24.10.20]) by mx2.shrew.net (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id u3JMAA1U027716 for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 17:10:10 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from mgrooms@shrew.net) Received: from [10.16.32.30] (unknown [172.126.77.65]) by mail.shrew.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BE1DA18CC6B for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 17:09:59 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8) To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org References: <76093.1461096570@critter.freebsd.dk> From: Matthew Grooms Message-ID: <5716AD65.8070007@shrew.net> Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 17:12:53 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <76093.1461096570@critter.freebsd.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (mx2.shrew.net [10.24.10.11]); Tue, 19 Apr 2016 17:10:10 -0500 (CDT) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 22:19:16 -0000 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, I just wish it wasn't always enthusiasm for stopping progress. > Maybe I missed an email in this thread, but I don't recall anyone completely rejecting the idea of packaging the base system. What I see is a discussion related to doing it in the best way possible. 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 everything else, you erase that distinction. I suspect that if the 'base is different' concept was preserved in a more fundamental way, there would be less resistance. After all, is there that much difference between trusting freebsd-update to patch X files vs trusting pkg to update X packaged files? What if there were two classes of packages, base and general? To interact with a base package set, perhaps an additional command line argument could be required. If you do a 'pkg info' after an install, an empty package set is shown. If you do a 'pkg info --base' ( or whatever ) instead, you see the base package set installed. If you need to get back to just the base system, you run 'pkg delete *' without the --base arg. In other words, base retains it's distinction and pkg pretty much works the same as it does now ( without the new argument ). -Matthew