From owner-freebsd-pkgbase@freebsd.org Tue Mar 8 13:39:28 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-pkgbase@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 8570CAC73DB; Tue, 8 Mar 2016 13:39:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from 000.fbsd@quip.cz) Received: from elsa.codelab.cz (elsa.codelab.cz [94.124.105.4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B810FC; Tue, 8 Mar 2016 13:39:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from 000.fbsd@quip.cz) Received: from elsa.codelab.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by elsa.codelab.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id D247C28433; Tue, 8 Mar 2016 14:39:25 +0100 (CET) Received: from illbsd.quip.test (ip-86-49-16-209.net.upcbroadband.cz [86.49.16.209]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by elsa.codelab.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DF6F528422; Tue, 8 Mar 2016 14:39:24 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <56DED60C.8060004@quip.cz> Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2016 14:39:24 +0100 From: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:35.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/35.0 SeaMonkey/2.32 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Glen Barber , Slawa Olhovchenkov CC: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-pkgbase@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8) References: <20160302235429.GD75641@FreeBSD.org> <20160308124016.GA70809@zxy.spb.ru> <20160308131847.GP1531@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20160308131847.GP1531@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-pkgbase@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Packaging the FreeBSD base system." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2016 13:39:28 -0000 Glen Barber wrote on 03/08/2016 14:18: > On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 03:40:16PM +0300, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: [...] >> Packaging of individual utilites is useless (total 19MB vs >> 30.7+2.8+20.7+2.9) and incorrect (for example, WITHOUT_ACCT not only >> don't build accton/lastcomm/sa but also cut off accaunting code from >> kernel for space saving and perforamce). >> > > Packaging individual utilities is not useless, depending on who you ask. > One of the first replies I received when starting separating userland > utilities into separate packages was further splitting rwho(1) and > rwhod(8) into different packages, the use case being not necessarily > needing (or wanting) the rwho(1) utility on systems where rwhod(8) runs. I didn't tried pkg base yet but I read posts on mailinglist. I understand the need of separating and splitting on the one side and I understand the fear of too long list of packages when one need to do some maintenance (update or upgrade). So one idea come to my mind - what about some meta-packages like "utilities, kernel, libs32, debug" hiding all details about real packages if there are some env variable or command line switch turned on? Meta-packages is used in current ports for things like PHP extensions. These ports meta-packages are not hiding real packages so this can be improved for base packages. It is just a quick idea how to satisfy both sides ;) Miroslav Lachman