From owner-freebsd-binup Tue Oct 22 10:46:27 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-binup@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2D0C37B401; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 10:46:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail1.qc.uunet.ca (mail1.qc.uunet.ca [198.168.54.16]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D37D943E42; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 10:46:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from anarcat@espresso-com.com) Received: from xtanbul.espresso-com.com ([216.94.147.57]) by mail1.qc.uunet.ca (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g9MHkHZ15230; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 13:46:17 -0400 Received: from anarcat by xtanbul.espresso-com.com with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18436g-0000vJ-00; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 13:46:18 -0400 Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 13:46:18 -0400 From: The Anarcat To: Murray Stokely Cc: GERARDO ENRIQUE PAREDES MANCIA , freebsd-binup@freebsd.org Subject: Breaking up base (was: current state of the binup project) Message-ID: <20021022174617.GC3492@xtanbul.espresso-com.com> References: <200210190255.10557.g.paredes@unitec.edu> <20021019105417.C69448@freebsdmall.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20021019105417.C69448@freebsdmall.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: owner-freebsd-binup@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sat Oct 19, 2002 at 10:54:17AM -0700, Murray Stokely wrote: [...] > the same mechanism. We were not interested in changing the package > format, because other groups (i.e. libh / openpackages) are more > focussed on that. We were focussed on updates, delivery, and breaking > up the base system into discrete components. Really? I've been dreaming about breaking up base for a long time now. Have binup started any work in this direction? I have a "paper" I started writing that I've been thinking to send to -arch for a while now, should it be sent here instead? A. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-binup" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-binup Tue Oct 22 11: 8: 4 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-binup@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5C7937B401 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 11:08:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from centaur.acm.jhu.edu (centaur.acm.jhu.edu [128.220.223.65]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C432243E75 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 11:07:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jflemer@acm.jhu.edu) Received: by centaur.acm.jhu.edu (Postfix, from userid 556) id 7624013E9B; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 14:07:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by centaur.acm.jhu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 758B437BF3 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 14:07:27 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 14:07:27 -0400 (EDT) From: "James E. Flemer" Reply-To: "James E. Flemer" To: Subject: updating shared libs Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-binup@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Wow, there is traffic here once again. Anyway, I was wondering if anyone has ideas about how one would go about replacing shared libs (assuming they are in use by running procs). Will doing so cause any problems? I assume that renaming a file won't cause problems because the inode is preserved, so the VM will still know where the backing store is. But what about upgrading something like libjpeg that may be in use by lots of programs. How should a binup type program deal with this? It would be nice if whatever binup process could provide patch, rollback, commit type operations to test patches w/o committing them on a running system. This would need a safe way of messing w/ shared libs w/o breaking stuff though. -James To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-binup" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-binup Tue Oct 22 11:53: 6 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-binup@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A52037B401; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 11:53:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail2.qc.uunet.ca (mail2.qc.uunet.ca [198.168.54.17]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AADC43E77; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 11:53:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from anarcat@espresso-com.com) Received: from xtanbul.espresso-com.com ([216.94.147.57]) by mail2.qc.uunet.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA24234; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 14:52:49 -0400 Received: from anarcat by xtanbul.espresso-com.com with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 184494-0000wS-00; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 14:52:50 -0400 Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 14:52:50 -0400 From: The Anarcat To: "James E. Flemer" Cc: freebsd-libh@freebsd.org Subject: Re: updating shared libs Message-ID: <20021022185249.GD3492@xtanbul.espresso-com.com> Reply-To: freebsd-libh@freebsd.org Mail-Followup-To: The Anarcat , "James E. Flemer" , freebsd-libh@freebsd.org References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: owner-freebsd-binup@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG I don't think this belongs to binup to decide. As Mark mentionned in a previous mail, binup shouldn't deal with packaging issues itself. So I'm CC'ing this to libh, and setting reply-to. See me comments inline. On Tue Oct 22, 2002 at 02:07:27PM -0400, James E. Flemer wrote: > Wow, there is traffic here once again. Anyway, I was > wondering if anyone has ideas about how one would go about > replacing shared libs (assuming they are in use by running > procs). Will doing so cause any problems? I assume that > renaming a file won't cause problems because the inode is > preserved, so the VM will still know where the backing > store is. I'll answer by explaining a bit how portupgrade works. portupgrade, when hitting a shared libs it must upgrade, moves it to ${PREFIX}/lib/compat/pkg/, and the new shared lib is installed in ${PREFIX}/lib as usual. lib/compat/pkg is kept in the ldconfig path, so the old library gets picked up when needed by old packages. portupgrade suggest cleaning up the compat directory every once in a while, but I have found it near to impossible without recompiling a lot of dependent packages. Apart from that, you're right about the renaming. I think that you could even *remove* a shared library altogether and *running* process wouldn't be affected, because the libaray is already open(2)'d. Of course, new processes wouldn't start because they wouldn't link properly. > But what about upgrading something like libjpeg that may be in use > by lots of programs. How should a binup type program deal with this? I'll tell you how I think libh will work this out. libh packages will have 3 dependency specs: RequiredFeature: - min version - prefered version - max version If (say) ImageMagick requires libjpeg-2 and only libjpeg-1 is installed, libh will perform an upgrade of libjpeg-1 to libjpeg-2, if possible. And this is pretty important. This means that all packages depending having libjpeg-1 as "max version" will have to be upgraded too so that they link properly. LibH should take care of this automatically. Of course, if the upgraded dependent packages aren't available anywhere, they will have to be compiled from scratch or the upgrade will simply fail. I guess it would be possible to hack this to *force* libh to install the new libjpeg over the old one, but that's really against libh's spirit. > It would be nice if whatever binup process could provide > patch, rollback, commit type operations to test patches w/o > committing them on a running system. This would need a safe > way of messing w/ shared libs w/o breaking stuff though. libh is designed to have full rollback support. However this is not completely implemented. A. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-binup" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-binup Wed Oct 23 3:52:25 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-binup@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4EB737B401; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 03:52:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from musiquera.com (ns1.radioactiva997.com [216.55.187.85]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45F6343E91; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 03:52:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gerardo@musiquera.com) Received: by musiquera.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id CC5E12467C; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 03:52:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 03:52:16 -0700 From: Gerardo Enrique Paredes To: Gerardo Enrique Paredes Mancia , The Anarcat , freebsd-binup@freebsd.org, Murray Stokely Subject: Re: Fwd: Breaking up base (was: current state of the binup project) Message-ID: <20021023105216.GA28355@musiquera.com> References: <200210230212.04522.g.paredes@unitec.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200210230212.04522.g.paredes@unitec.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: owner-freebsd-binup@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 02:12:04AM -0600, Gerardo Enrique Paredes Mancia wrote: > > > ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- > > Subject: Breaking up base (was: current state of the binup project) > Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 13:46:18 -0400 > From: The Anarcat > To: Murray Stokely > Cc: GERARDO ENRIQUE PAREDES MANCIA , > freebsd-binup@freebsd.org > > On Sat Oct 19, 2002 at 10:54:17AM -0700, Murray Stokely wrote: > [...] > > > the same mechanism. We were not interested in changing the package > > format, because other groups (i.e. libh / openpackages) are more > > focussed on that. We were focussed on updates, delivery, and breaking > > up the base system into discrete components. > > Really? I've been dreaming about breaking up base for a long time > now. Have binup started any work in this direction? > > I have a "paper" I started writing that I've been thinking to send to > -arch for a while now, should it be sent here instead? > Well, maybe i am wrong, but for doing a binary update everythin is almost laid, at least that's how i am trying to make it, this is the general approach i am gonna take: - the client contact the server and ask to see if a profile is available, let the profile be FreeBSD-4.7-RELEASE then asks for a certain "distribution", let' the distribtuion be doc. - The client now request the doc.aa, doc.ab, doc.?? chunks from the server, the server get them from their location on disk and send them to the client using sendfile(2) as Murray suggested. - Happilly the client get the chunks then checksum them and follow a silimar approach to install them (i.e: cat doc.?? | tar --unlink -xpzf - -C ${DESTDIR:-/}) as the current sysintall binary update procedure does. As i said before, correct me if i am wrong but this an "It Works" way of doing it , but i may be wrong about this is the way the project wants to do it. Please correct me if i am wrong and expect patches by the next week. Gerardo > > ------------------------------------------------------- > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-binup" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-binup Wed Oct 23 7:56:14 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-binup@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4061137B401; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 07:56:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aeimail.aei.ca (aeimail.aei.ca [206.123.6.14]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BEC643E6A; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 07:56:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from anarcat@anarcat.ath.cx) Received: from shall.anarcat.ath.cx (cbe71qptg7jou2ah@dsl-130-203.aei.ca [66.36.130.203]) by aeimail.aei.ca (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id g9NEtuS19179; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:55:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lenny.anarcat.ath.cx (lenny.anarcat.ath.cx [192.168.0.4]) by shall.anarcat.ath.cx (Postfix) with SMTP id A28D34E5; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:55:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: by lenny.anarcat.ath.cx (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:55:24 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:55:24 -0400 From: The Anarcat To: Gerardo Enrique Paredes Cc: Gerardo Enrique Paredes Mancia , freebsd-binup@freebsd.org, Murray Stokely Subject: Re: Fwd: Breaking up base (was: current state of the binup project) Message-ID: <20021023145524.GC321@lenny.anarcat.ath.cx> References: <200210230212.04522.g.paredes@unitec.edu> <20021023105216.GA28355@musiquera.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ctP54qlpMx3WjD+/" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20021023105216.GA28355@musiquera.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i Sender: owner-freebsd-binup@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG --ctP54qlpMx3WjD+/ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable [wrapping lines] On Wed Oct 23, 2002 at 03:52:16AM -0700, Gerardo Enrique Paredes wrote: > On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 02:12:04AM -0600, Gerardo Enrique Paredes Mancia = wrote: > >=20 > >=20 > > ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- > >=20 > > Subject: Breaking up base (was: current state of the binup project) > > Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 13:46:18 -0400 > > From: The Anarcat > > To: Murray Stokely > > Cc: GERARDO ENRIQUE PAREDES MANCIA ,=20 > > freebsd-binup@freebsd.org > >=20 > > On Sat Oct 19, 2002 at 10:54:17AM -0700, Murray Stokely wrote: > > [...] > >=20 > > > the same mechanism. We were not interested in changing the package > > > format, because other groups (i.e. libh / openpackages) are more > > > focussed on that. We were focussed on updates, delivery, and breaking > > > up the base system into discrete components. > >=20 > > Really? I've been dreaming about breaking up base for a long time > > now. Have binup started any work in this direction? > >=20 > > I have a "paper" I started writing that I've been thinking to send to > > -arch for a while now, should it be sent here instead? > > > Well, maybe i am wrong, but for doing a binary update everythin is > almost laid, at least that's how i am trying to make it, this is the > general approach i am gonna take: >=20 > - the client contact the server and ask to see if a profile is > available, let the profile be FreeBSD-4.7-RELEASE then asks for a > certain "distribution", let' the distribtuion be doc. > - The client now request the doc.aa, doc.ab, doc.?? chunks from the > server, the server get them from their location on disk and send > them to the client using sendfile(2) as Murray suggested. >=20 > - Happilly the client get the chunks then checksum them and follow a > silimar approach to install them (i.e: cat doc.?? | tar --unlink > -xpzf - -C ${DESTDIR:-/}) as the current sysintall binary update > procedure does. >=20 > As i said before, correct me if i am wrong but this an "It Works" > way of doing it , but i may be wrong about this is the way the > project wants to do it. Please correct me if i am wrong and expect > patches by the next week. Sure it works. The point is that this could be improved, but not necessarly on the binup side. The client/server protocol is interesting and should provide a powerful tool. But everything about the doc.* chunks and the client checksumming and installing them is not part of binup. It's part of the package system. My point is that binup should be package-system agnostic. I would have a directory of "packages" (whatever the format) associated with profiles, but wouldn't impose a file format. A. --=20 Stop the bombings. Stop the murders. Anti-war. --ctP54qlpMx3WjD+/ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE9trhbttcWHAnWiGcRAkqGAJ9wCORF1y9MQQuEkjnIGxCCHIeTygCgkMOo qOXbr8xCTHjGZ16wVR88wUQ= =rCDF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ctP54qlpMx3WjD+/-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-binup" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-binup Wed Oct 23 12:54:23 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-binup@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 885) id B8F8437B401; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 12:54:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 12:54:22 -0700 From: Eric Melville To: GERARDO ENRIQUE PAREDES MANCIA Cc: freebsd-binup@FreeBSD.org, murray@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: current state of the binup project Message-ID: <20021023125422.A86417@FreeBSD.org> References: <200210190255.10557.g.paredes@unitec.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <200210190255.10557.g.paredes@unitec.edu>; from g.paredes@unitec.edu on Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 02:55:10AM -0600 Sender: owner-freebsd-binup@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > I would like to know which is the current state of this project, if its still > being worked or is abandoned. It's something I want to do. Unfortunately I'm stuck with very little time between paid work and school work, especially needing to create a reliable multicast protocol from scratch for a group project this quarter. > I also have some doubts about what the components in the current codebase do, > for example, the current incarnation of updated only holds metadata for the > releases, profiles, files and such; my question is if updated is gonna > continue just being a meta-data server and the client will handle the actual > downloading and installing of the binary distributions using libfetch in the > same style that pkg_install(1) and friends do? If so, how are you going to > handle the binary packages? are they going to be the same chunks that the > distribution cd's hold?. The code currently appearing in the projects directory in cvs is not worth very much. It exists to transfer files and other such information related to services BSDi was interested in providing. With BSDi out of the picture, all we care about is transferring files, and there's better ways to do that. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-binup" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-binup Fri Oct 25 11:37:32 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-binup@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AA3637B401; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 11:37:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from groovie.org (adsl-64-161-27-250.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net [64.161.27.250]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD82143E42; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 11:37:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from skyline@groovie.org) Received: from skyline by groovie.org with local (Exim 3.34 #1) id 1859G2-0006q9-00; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 11:32:30 -0700 Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 11:32:30 -0700 From: Philip Jenvey To: The Anarcat Cc: Murray Stokely , GERARDO ENRIQUE PAREDES MANCIA , freebsd-binup@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Breaking up base (was: current state of the binup project) Message-ID: <20021025113230.E19673@groovie.org> References: <200210190255.10557.g.paredes@unitec.edu> <20021019105417.C69448@freebsdmall.com> <20021022174617.GC3492@xtanbul.espresso-com.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20021022174617.GC3492@xtanbul.espresso-com.com>; from anarcat@anarcat.ath.cx on Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 01:46:18PM -0400 Sender: owner-freebsd-binup@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 01:46:18PM -0400, The Anarcat wrote: > On Sat Oct 19, 2002 at 10:54:17AM -0700, Murray Stokely wrote: > [...] > > the same mechanism. We were not interested in changing the package > > format, because other groups (i.e. libh / openpackages) are more > > focussed on that. We were focussed on updates, delivery, and breaking > > up the base system into discrete components. > > Really? I've been dreaming about breaking up base for a long time > now. Have binup started any work in this direction? > > I have a "paper" I started writing that I've been thinking to send to > -arch for a while now, should it be sent here instead? > > A. > Antoine, we'd love to hear your ideas, even if the "paper" is still in a state that requires surrounding double quotes to describe it. -- Philip Jenvey To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-binup" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-binup Fri Oct 25 11:43:25 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-binup@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14DD937B401; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 11:43:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail2.qc.uunet.ca (mail2.qc.uunet.ca [198.168.54.17]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C622943E42; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 11:43:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from anarcat@espresso-com.com) Received: from xtanbul.espresso-com.com ([216.94.147.57]) by mail2.qc.uunet.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA09000; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 14:43:06 -0400 Received: from anarcat by xtanbul.espresso-com.com with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1859QG-0002k4-00; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 14:43:04 -0400 Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 14:43:04 -0400 From: The Anarcat To: Philip Jenvey Cc: Murray Stokely , GERARDO ENRIQUE PAREDES MANCIA , freebsd-binup@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Breaking up base (was: current state of the binup project) Message-ID: <20021025184304.GB10069@xtanbul.espresso-com.com> References: <200210190255.10557.g.paredes@unitec.edu> <20021019105417.C69448@freebsdmall.com> <20021022174617.GC3492@xtanbul.espresso-com.com> <20021025113230.E19673@groovie.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20021025113230.E19673@groovie.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: owner-freebsd-binup@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Fri Oct 25, 2002 at 11:32:30AM -0700, Philip Jenvey wrote: > On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 01:46:18PM -0400, The Anarcat wrote: > > On Sat Oct 19, 2002 at 10:54:17AM -0700, Murray Stokely wrote: > > [...] > > > the same mechanism. We were not interested in changing the package > > > format, because other groups (i.e. libh / openpackages) are more > > > focussed on that. We were focussed on updates, delivery, and breaking > > > up the base system into discrete components. > > > > Really? I've been dreaming about breaking up base for a long time > > now. Have binup started any work in this direction? > > > > I have a "paper" I started writing that I've been thinking to send to > > -arch for a while now, should it be sent here instead? > > > > A. > > > > Antoine, we'd love to hear your ideas, even if the "paper" is still in > a state that requires surrounding double quotes to describe it. I have changed my mind, sorry. After further discussion with some people, I have come to realize that it would be close to impossible to break up base without a new package system, and therefore, I'm not exposing a new scheme to see it demolished by FUD and armchair grannies that don't know what all this involves. No offense meant to anyone here in particular, of course. :) Seriously, breaking up base has several obvious advantages, but, as JKH pointed out in private mail, the current pkg_* tools aren't up to the task. They would just die an horrible death trying (for example) to install parts of bin into a small size disk, because they have to extract the package to a temporary location before installing. This is one in many things that forbid me from going forward with my paper. I'm sorry. A. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-binup" in the body of the message