Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 23:25:28 -0400 From: Joe Maloney <jmaloney@ixsystems.com> To: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Cc: Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com>, freebsd-pkgbase@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CFT: FreeBSD Package Base Message-ID: <DC38A512-0CE7-411A-AEEB-B3943949CC2F@ixsystems.com> In-Reply-To: <201904300241.x3U2femm075775@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> References: <201904300241.x3U2femm075775@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
What you describe is the sysup tool for managing updates with boot = environments which is not part of the CFT ISO. The pkg upgrade command = is used to update the base packages. Sysup is not necessary unless you = want a wrapper to create boot environments. =20 Having said that I cannot describe the problems I=E2=80=99ve had for = several years with FreeBSD=E2=80=99s pkg base without muddying the = waters with this CFT. So I sort of agree it should be called =E2=80=9Cpla= nned pkg-base=E2=80=9D, or =E2=80=9Cactually has a chance at being = integratabtle pkg-base=E2=80=9D. Try the ISO I think you will like it. Joe Maloney Quality Engineering Manager / iXsystems Enterprise Storage & Servers Driven By Open Source > On Apr 29, 2019, at 10:41 PM, Rodney W. Grimes = <freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> wrote: >=20 >> On April 29, 2019 1:50:00 PM PDT, Garrett Wollman = <wollman@csail.mit.edu> wrote: >>> <<On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 12:31:07 -0700, Cy Schubertt=20 >>> <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com> said: >>>=20 >>>> The discussion about granularity begs the question, why pkgbase in >>> the=20 >>>> first place? My impression was that it allowed people to select = which >>>=20 >>>> components they wanted to either create a lean installation or mix >>> and=20 >>>> match base packages and ports (possibly with flavours to install in=20= >>>> /usr rather than $LOCALBASE) such that maybe person A wanted a = stock=20 >>>> install while person B wanted to replace, picking a random example, >>> BSD=20 >>>> tar with GNU tar. Isn't that the real advantage of pkgbase? >>>=20 >>> No. The "real" advantage of pkgbase is that it allows the = distributor >>> of a customized version of the operating system to support = binary-only >>> updates, without all the (non-trivial) infrastructure of running a >>> custom FreeBSD-update builder and distribution server. >>>=20 >>> Consider my position: I have about 30 servers (and another ~10 = jails) >>> that all run the same local build of FreeBSD. Right now, the only >>> reliable way to update them is to NFS-mount /usr/src and /usr/obj = from >>> my build server, and run a (slow) "make installworld". It would >>> literally save me hours out of every upgrade (or base-system = security >>> fix) to be able to install compressed binary packages downloaded = over >>> http, and I'd have better security because binary packages are >>> signed. >>>=20 >>> For my use case, I don't much care what the granularity is, so long = as >>> I can safely upgrade (or update) the kernel independently of the >>> userland and independently of third-party packages -- just two >>> packages (kernel and userland) would suffice, although I'd probably >>> prefer the runtime libraries to be in a separate package just for >>> safety. >>>=20 >>> I'm not distributing packages to third parties, I just want to be = able >>> to install and upgrade my packages on my fleet of servers and jails >>> quickly and safely. This is not the entirety of the use cases the >>> project as a whole needs to support, but it's a major *end-user* use >>> case. (And I've said as much in various surveys.) >>>=20 >>> -GAWollman >>=20 >> An anaconda-like installer for freebsd could do that. Also a perfect = job for cfengine or ansible. Deploy and use a playbook to enforce = policy. >=20 > https://anaconda-installer.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ = <https://anaconda-installer.readthedocs.io/en/latest/>; >=20 >> You don't need to break up base into packages (not arguing against = packaging) to gain the benefits of configuration management. >>=20 >> As for updating, freebsd-update is mostly there to accomplish your = requirement without pkgbase. Which begs the question, if we're simply = replacing freebsd-update and it does most of what we want why the extra = effort? Unless we want to solve more than just this problem? Which BTW I = think we do. >>=20 >> I've seen pkgbase as a building block to build an anaconda-like = installer complete with scripting language. The ability to pick and = choose packages as many Linux distros do is one part of it. >=20 > What seems to be confusing here is that TrueOS/FreeNAS's > "package base" and the work that has been on going IN > the FreeBSD base system for 2+ (3?) years are 2=20 > different things with different goal sets and this > CFT has very much muddied that water as to what is > what. >=20 > Is there an advocation by iXsystems and TrueOS to replace > what is in the base system now with this new Go implementation > in ports? >=20 > Are they orthagonal? If so can we please rename one? >=20 >=20 > --=20 > Rod Grimes = rgrimes@freebsd.org <mailto:rgrimes@freebsd.org> > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-pkgbase@freebsd.org <mailto:freebsd-pkgbase@freebsd.org> = mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-pkgbase = <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-pkgbase>; > To unsubscribe, send any mail to = "freebsd-pkgbase-unsubscribe@freebsd.org = <mailto:freebsd-pkgbase-unsubscribe@freebsd.org>"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?DC38A512-0CE7-411A-AEEB-B3943949CC2F>