Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 10 Dec 2017 16:41:28 -0600
From:      Grouchy Sysadmin <sysadmin@grouchysysadmin.com>
To:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: New packaging approach
Message-ID:  <483d6c09-af4e-5d4a-0681-79498fa3b756@grouchysysadmin.com>
In-Reply-To: <1c6fbb48-6029-2d93-8fff-675ef800b3c2@columbus.rr.com>
References:  <alpine.BSF.2.00.1712100018070.47298@bucksport.safeport.com> <07f48e07-ce70-7a26-ea19-fd389375afb4@columbus.rr.com> <alpine.BSF.2.20.1712101201270.91490@fledge.watson.org> <1c6fbb48-6029-2d93-8fff-675ef800b3c2@columbus.rr.com>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help


On 12/10/2017 02:44 PM, Baho Utot wrote:
>
> On 12/10/2017 1:54 PM, doug wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 10 Dec 2017, Baho Utot wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/10/2017 12:33 AM, DTD wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, 9 Dec 2017, Polytropon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> However, I am not sure how the new packaging approach will handle 
>>>>> this. As you might have read, pkg will be used for installing and 
>>>>> upgrading OS files in the future, so there will not be the big 
>>>>> difference "freebsd-update" and "pkg update" / "pkg upgrade".
>>>>
>>>> Where can I read about this? If this leads to dependency issues 
>>>> similar to those encountered with desktops, my reaction is more of 
>>>> 'oh s--t' rather then 'oh boy'. Back to the days when the odd or 
>>>> even versions numbers were for those of us (read me) who do not 
>>>> track Stable for similar reasons.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The way the packaging of base is currently being done will*guarantee 
>>> a great level of OH SHIT.
>>
>> First, I will qualify my comments by saying I am an end user. I did 
>> take Kurt McKusick's internals course a decade or so ago. Never ended 
>> up going anywhere with C but it was/is a good way to understand the 
>> workings and to be a better sysadmin. My experience with FreeBSD is 
>> that once release engineering was fully integrated into the upgrade 
>> process in the 4.x's, maybe the version 5 era (memory goes shortly 
>> after the tolerance for coding 12 hrs/day) I have never had any 
>> issues through cvsup, Subversion, and freebsd-update. If you follow 
>> the releases, they work. Maybe if you are developing a port or are a 
>> contributor to the base, things are not so rosy. But here in userland 
>> things are better managed than IBM did with MFT, MVT into MVS. I'm 
>> pretty sure those guys got paid pretty well and did not have to have 
>> a day job to do what they really wanted to.
>>
>> That's a really wordy way to say I disagree with the idea that 
>> development of the base OS has been mis-handled. In server-land since 
>> 4.5 no gotcha's here (as a keeper of servers). Things are a bit 
>> rougher if you want to run a FreeBSD workstation. On my current 
>> desktop I have gimp, libre office and my window manager of choice. 
>> 613 packages and items built from ports. The pkg frame-work is much 
>> improved over the old pkg_add et all. However, the number of 
>> combinations of {613,n} where n is the number of shared libraries, 
>> dynamic and static is a large number (finite but unbounded). And all 
>> involved have to get all the dependencies right to have zero problems.
>>
>> My concern is, if it works don't fix it. And, if you must, I would 
>> like to start getting up to speed on it ASAP. I have access to every 
>> freebsd list but have not found a discussion of this. My only request 
>> is to be pointed to where I can follow the discussion.
>
> Have you ever used the "packaged base" If not you don't have a clue to 
> just how bad it is
>
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to 
> "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"

Perhaps https://wiki.freebsd.org/PkgBase would help shed some light on 
things.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?483d6c09-af4e-5d4a-0681-79498fa3b756>