From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org  Tue Apr 19 17:55:37 2016
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
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 A549DB153B6;
 Tue, 19 Apr 2016 17:55:37 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from marquis@roble.com)
Received: from mx5.roble.com (mx5.roble.com [206.40.34.5])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (Client CN "mx5.roble.com", Issuer "mx5.roble.com" (not verified))
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3DB1719B6;
 Tue, 19 Apr 2016 17:55:37 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from marquis@roble.com)
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 10:55:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: Roger Marquis <marquis@roble.com>
To: Lev Serebryakov <lev@FreeBSD.org>
cc: Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@freebsd.org>, 
 Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org>, 
 Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@orthanc.ca>, freebsd-pkgbase@freebsd.org, 
 freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)
In-Reply-To: <57166870.5060104@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>
 <571588BB.2070803@orthanc.ca> <201604190201.u3J216NQ054020@orthanc.ca>
 <5715968B.303@orthanc.ca> <5715A338.5060009@freebsd.org>
 <57165C91.7070005@freebsd.org> <57166870.5060104@FreeBSD.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
 <freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-current>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 17:55:37 -0000

> Please, consider ops and admins, who must support old installations,
> often made by other, not-reachable, people, and stuff like this,

Ops and admins such as myself are exactly the ones who will benefit most
from base packages.  Being able run to: 1) 'pkg audit' and see that base
ssl has a vulnerability, 2) 'pkg install -f' to update 3) only those
specific parts of base that need to be updated is far simpler (KIS) and
faster than what we go through now.  More than a few formerly bsd shops
have migrated to linux simply to avoid regular iterations of cd
/usr/src; svn up; make cleanworld; make buildworld installworld ...

The use cases for granular base packages are more numerous than even
these obvious ones.  The downside OTOH, seems to consist of not much
more than the size of the package list.  If I missed other issues please
do clarify.  Will base packages be improved, sure, but they're already
more useful and bugfree than pkgng when it was mandated.

In any case, if I'm not mistaken base packages are entirely optional.

Roger Marquis