Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 20:24:17 -0700 From: Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@orthanc.ca> To: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org>, freebsd-pkgbase@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8) Message-ID: <5715A4E1.5090606@orthanc.ca> In-Reply-To: <5715A338.5060009@freebsd.org> References: <20160302235429.GD75641@FreeBSD.org> <57152CE5.5050500@FreeBSD.org> <9D4B9C8B-41D7-42BC-B436-D23EFFF60261@ixsystems.com> <20160418191425.GW1554@FreeBSD.org> <571533B8.6090109@freebsd.org> <20160418194010.GX1554@FreeBSD.org> <57153E80.4080800@FreeBSD.org> <571551AB.4070203@freebsd.org> <5715772A.3070306@freebsd.org> <571588BB.2070803@orthanc.ca> <201604190201.u3J216NQ054020@orthanc.ca> <5715968B.303@orthanc.ca> <5715A338.5060009@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2016-04-18 8:17 PM, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > Can someone on the "too many packages" campaign here explain to me how > having too fine a granularity stops you from making macro packages > containing packages? > > Because honestly I can't see how having granularity hurts at all when if > someone wanted to make it less granular all they would have to do is > make some meta-packages. It's the *I have to put it back together* part that's annoying. I didn't break something that has worked, forever. It shouldn't be incumbent on me to un-break someone else's work. Now if the system ships with each-file-in-a-package, fine. Just give me gross subsets that make my life as a sysadmin liveable. E.g., base POSIX functionality should be a 'group' package. And I would hope, the default installation package. I would go for the argument that, e.g., the dev stuff (cc, yacc, lex) could be split off, but at least include the headers that match what's in /lib and /usr/lib, in a compiler agnostic set. Since the point of packages is to allow for selections of optional software. --lyndon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5715A4E1.5090606>