From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Tue Mar 8 17:36:18 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@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 2D6D8AC81E2; Tue, 8 Mar 2016 17:36:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from theraven@FreeBSD.org) Received: from theravensnest.org (theraven.freebsd.your.org [216.14.102.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "cloud.theravensnest.org", Issuer "StartCom Class 1 Primary Intermediate Server CA" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03E581C43; Tue, 8 Mar 2016 17:36:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from theraven@FreeBSD.org) Received: from [192.168.0.7] (cpc91230-cmbg18-2-0-cust661.5-4.cable.virginm.net [82.1.230.150]) (authenticated bits=0) by theravensnest.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id u28Ha55J011460 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 8 Mar 2016 17:36:14 GMT (envelope-from theraven@FreeBSD.org) X-Authentication-Warning: theravensnest.org: Host cpc91230-cmbg18-2-0-cust661.5-4.cable.virginm.net [82.1.230.150] claimed to be [192.168.0.7] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\)) Subject: Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8) From: David Chisnall In-Reply-To: <20160308151459.GB70809@zxy.spb.ru> Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 17:35:59 +0000 Cc: Glen Barber , freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-pkgbase@freebsd.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <05A039B7-AA9A-47BB-B68E-89D9D5627D20@FreeBSD.org> References: <20160302235429.GD75641@FreeBSD.org> <20160308124016.GA70809@zxy.spb.ru> <20160308131847.GP1531@FreeBSD.org> <20160308151459.GB70809@zxy.spb.ru> To: Slawa Olhovchenkov X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2016 17:36:18 -0000 On 8 Mar 2016, at 15:14, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: >=20 > Yes, I undertund this. But what profit of this? Addtional size is > small, many small packages is bad. We already have expirense with > spliting Xorg to many small packages -- no profit of this. The X.org case is similar, but not quite the same. The X.org split was = to ease development, but came at a cost of packaging because you almost = always want all of X (or, at least, most of it - there are a few things = such as Xephyr that many users may want to skip). In FreeBSD, we *do* have a compelling case for installing a small subset = of the base system: service jails (or =E2=80=98containerised = applications=E2=80=99 as the kids are calling them). We want to be able = to install, for example, owncloud and nginx or ejabberd in a jail with = only the bare minimum required for them to start and run. We want = updates to these jails to be fast and we want disk usage (and install = time) to be low. In such a jail, I want a shell, the parts of sbin = needed to do network setup, the libraries that these ports depend on, = *and nothing else*. We=E2=80=99re still a way away from doing that. Comparing the installed sets can be simplified with some improvements to = the pkg UI, for example allowing a set of packages to be aggregated into = a single entry. This is not quite the same as the metapackage concept. = If you install everything, then a FreeBSD-base-all metapackage might = show up as a single thing unless you ask for a verbose output. We can = also present these in a hierarchical manner, so that you can drill down = and see more detail if you want to. In terms of comparing packages, if you=E2=80=99re doing that visually = then you are likely to have problems anyway, unless your eyes and brain = work far better than most humans. We can make that much easier by = providing libxo output in pkg and allowing you to have a simple jq = script that tells you what the differences are. David