Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2016 21:24:39 -0800 From: Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@freebsd.org> To: Glen Barber <gjb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org>, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-projects@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r295280 - projects/release-pkg/release/packages Message-ID: <56B82697.4090800@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20160205013040.GG13799@FreeBSD.org> References: <201602042120.u14LKQ2b026571@repo.freebsd.org> <56B3C34B.1080501@freebsd.org> <56B3C6E4.60907@FreeBSD.org> <56B3C7A3.5000502@FreeBSD.org> <56B3EF97.9040205@freebsd.org> <20160205005113.GD13799@FreeBSD.org> <56B3F5A2.7070600@freebsd.org> <20160205013040.GG13799@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thank you very much for the overview! I had a couple of questions inline, but please feel free to answer them at your leisure. On 02/04/16 17:30, Glen Barber wrote: > >> Maybe I missed them? The talks I've seen (e.g. >> https://www.bsdcan.org/2015/schedule/events/563.en.html) describe some >> technical problems, the idea that pkg is nicer than freebsd-update (true >> enough), and that having some more granularity (bind and sendmail separated >> out, for instance) in installation would be a good thing. That all sounds >> perfectly reasonable and good, but is also pretty nebulous. >> >> It would be good have something a little more detailed on what a packaged >> base system actually looks like: what kinds of things would constitute a >> package? > Short answer: A set of binaries and libraries upon which the binaries > require to run. So would this imply that, say, ls would be its own package? Or that we would have something less granular (so that things like sendmail would be a package)? It seems like this is something still in flux, so there may not be an answer yet. >> are those packages (e.g. for sendmail) interchangeable with ones >> from ports? > Separate package repositories. Separate package naming scheme. > Completely independent. > >> would the pkg tool be imported into base? > No. Doesn't this complicate the installer tremendously? The install ISOs would need pkg on them and couldn't be built only from the base system anymore. -Nathan > >> will all the versions of packages be locked together? > No more than is in place now. If library Z is updated to address > a vulnerability, and packages X and Y depend on Z, then X and Y will > be updated. > >> is the idea to have buildworld/installworld generate packages now? > No. I've made it very clear this is *not* the goal, nor even part of > the end result. > >> is it just equivalent to replacing tar and freebsd-update with pkg? >> > "Just equivalent" is a bit of a stretch for an understatement, but sure. > >> Some unified few-page white paper that goes through all of that would be >> really appreciated. If I'm asking questions here, it's only because I don't >> know what the overall plan is and don't have anywhere else to ask. >> Especially for something that is going to be a requirement for 11.x, it >> would be good to know what it is that we are actually requiring. Please >> don't take any of this as criticism -- I realize you are very busy writing >> code and that the plan is adapting to code realities as you go -- but it >> would be helpful for the rest of us to know where you are planning to go >> with the branch. > The end goal is still to be determined. Again, eggs and omelets. As > I have been able to spend more time focusing on this branch, more issues > have become obvious, and many changes committed to address the issues > (clearly some commits are not things people want to see). > > The single-sentence white-paper is this: > > This is still a work in progress, but the end goal is a consistent, > cohesive, and reliable set of packages that one can update and install > on the fly, providing granularity within FreeBSD, while ensuring future > SAs and ENs are addressable in a similar, sane manner. > > Glen >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?56B82697.4090800>