Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 18:24:11 -0700 From: Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@orthanc.ca> To: freebsd-pkgbase@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8) Message-ID: <571588BB.2070803@orthanc.ca> In-Reply-To: <5715772A.3070306@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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2016-04-18 5:09 PM, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: > I'm not so sure about these statements. Maintaining groups of packages > can be easier, but it can be also be harder. The goal is to find the > right level. And I haven't seen a case where an 800-packages level of > granularity is helpful. Not to mention regression testing. The number of combinations of installed packages is going to be choose(1, 800) + chose(2, 800) + ... + choose(800, 800). And while some of those combinations will be non-nonsensical, many(!) won't. There aren't enough seconds in the universe to test all the viable combinations for one single release. If fact, I would suggest a good metric for package granularity be based on the set of combinations that *can* be tested in a realistic timeframe for each release. --lyndon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?571588BB.2070803>