Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 12:31:07 -0700 From: Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com> To: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Cc: Kris Moore <kris@ixsystems.com>, FreeBSD Stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, =?UTF-8?Q?Goran_Meki=C4=87?= <meka@tilda.center>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, freebsd-pkgbase@freebsd.org, freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org, Emmanuel Vadot <manu@bidouilliste.com> Subject: Re: CFT: FreeBSD Package Base Message-ID: <201904291931.x3TJV73d079802@slippy.cwsent.com> In-Reply-To: Message from "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> of "Mon, 29 Apr 2019 07:41:22 -0700." <201904291441.x3TEfMid072751@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <201904291441.x3TEfMid072751@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>, "Rodney W. Grimes" writes: > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 10:09 AM Rodney W. Grimes < > > freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Correct, this is ZFS only. And it's something we're using specific to > > > FreeNAS / TrueOS, which is why I didn't originally mention it as apart of > > > our CFT. > > > > > > Then please it is "CFT: FreeNAS/TrueOS pkg base, ZFS only", > > > calling this FreeBSD pkg base when it is not was wrong, > > > and miss leading. > > > > > > > Sorry, I disagree. > Which is fine. > > > This pkg base is independent of the ZFS tool we're using > > to wrangle boot-environments. Hence why it wasn't mentioned in the CFT. > > These base packages work the same as existing in-tree pkg base on UFS, no > > difference. If anything are probably safer due to being able to update all > > of userland in single extract operation, so you don't have out of order > > extraction of libc or some such. > > You missed the major string change and focused on the edge, > No comment on calling iXsystems :stuff: FreeBSD instead of FreeNAS/TrueOS? > > That was the major point of my statement, your miss leading the user > community, you yourself said this would never be imported into FreeBSD > base, so I see no reason that it should be called "FreeBSD package Base", > as it is not, that is a different project. Taking the last comment on this thread to ask a question and maybe refocus a little. The discussion about granularity begs the question, why pkgbase in the first place? My impression was that it allowed people to select which components they wanted to either create a lean installation or mix and match base packages and ports (possibly with flavours to install in /usr rather than $LOCALBASE) such that maybe person A wanted a stock install while person B wanted to replace, picking a random example, BSD tar with GNU tar. Isn't that the real advantage of pkgbase? If OTOH it's binary updates V 2.0, what's the point? I'm a little rhetorical here but you get my point. If I want ipfw instead pf or ipfilter instead of the others I should have the freedom. Similarly if I want vim instead of vi I should have the choice to install vim as /usr/bin/vi. Otherwise all the effort to replace binary updates makes no sense. -- Cheers, Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com> FreeBSD UNIX: <cy@FreeBSD.org> Web: http://www.FreeBSD.org The need of the many outweighs the greed of the few.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201904291931.x3TJV73d079802>