Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 10:12:14 -0500 From: Mike Meyer <mwm-dated-1020093135.73d851@mired.org> To: The Anarcat <anarcat@anarcat.dyndns.org> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: packaging base Message-ID: <15558.52046.142372.646281@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <20020424121651.GA317@lenny.anarcat.dyndns.org> References: <20020424030937.GC323@lenny.anarcat.dyndns.org> <15558.12150.814150.317904@guru.mired.org> <20020424050711.GC973@lenny.anarcat.dyndns.org> <15558.16369.602750.415167@guru.mired.org> <20020424121651.GA317@lenny.anarcat.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[Replies have been pointed to -hackers to get this off of -stable.] In <20020424121651.GA317@lenny.anarcat.dyndns.org>, The Anarcat <anarcat@anarcat.dyndns.org> typed: > On Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 12:17:37AM -0500, Mike Meyer wrote: > > In <20020424050711.GC973@lenny.anarcat.dyndns.org>, The Anarcat <anarcat@anarcat.dyndns.org> typed: > > > On Tue Apr 23, 2002 at 11:07:18PM -0500, Mike Meyer wrote: > > > > In <20020424030937.GC323@lenny.anarcat.dyndns.org>, The Anarcat <anarcat@anarcat.dyndns.org> typed: > > > > > The main issues I see about packaging the base system is [1] how plists > > > > > are to be handled and [2] how configurations files are to be handled. > > > > You missed the biggie: [3] how the base system install is handled. > > > The same way the rest of the system is. [3] = [1] + [2] > > No, it isn't. Ports don't have the requirement to fit on a single > > floppy. > The more we move towards packaging the whole system, the more this > distinction will be blurred, hence [3] = [1] + [2]. Ok, so the biggie is [3] - the ports system needs to handle ports broken up into floppies. > > That one's not the problem. The problem is catting together many > > *floppies* to get a package prior to actually installing it. That's > > not quite so simple. > I could see a simple shell script deal with that. I think it is quite > simple. Your simple shell script has to prompt for floppies. That needs UI code. The people who know have decided that the current UI code isn't up to snuff. Hence libh. > > > But guess what: libh won't get through if it's not a drop-in > > > replacement for sysinstall. > > What makes you say that? > FUD. Documentation is written for sysinstall and everyone's used to > it. Considering that the installation process is the one that generates the most complaints/suggestions/etc., changing it is certainly a must. Yes, we'll need new documentation. I believe there are plans to have them both available for a while. But making it a drop-in would defeat one of the reasons for rewriting it. > > > In other words, libh doesn't know about the ports collection or > > > /usr/src yet, and I don't think it's going to change soon. > > Yes, but it will change eventually. > I hope not. I prefer keeping the package management system seperate > from the source management system. Wait - source management? What does libh or sysinstall have to do with source management, beyond installing the source in the first place. Ideally, you want that to be just another package. > > And yes, it's going to require rewriting the package format to deal > > with the issues needed for working on the base system. > I don't think you have proved that point. You're right, I haven't. I've been resorting to argument by authority, which isn't proof. However, I tend to believe the original author of a software when he says that something needs to be done a specific way to change that system. If you want to argue with the author, jkh's address is well-known. <mike -- Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15558.52046.142372.646281>