Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 13:25:14 +0200 From: Kurt Jaeger <lists@opsec.eu> To: Jan Bramkamp <crest@rlwinm.de> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: harder and harder to avoid pkg Message-ID: <20161014112514.GH51420@home.opsec.eu> In-Reply-To: <6fb5beb3-5332-c795-f8b0-acfd2b5b95b9@rlwinm.de> References: <638fe078-80db-2492-90be-f1280eb8d445@freebsd.org> <20161013183338.42f6777d@gumby.homeunix.com> <9699a36d-fd4d-dfaf-eccf-6c744ea7e5fd@freebsd.org> <6fb5beb3-5332-c795-f8b0-acfd2b5b95b9@rlwinm.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi! > > This is an appliance class machine. It has 2G of storage and that has > > to include 2 copies for the OS so we can ping-pong for upgrades. > > I can get > 2GB CPU cache per system (spread over 8+ sockets) these > days. Is it really reasonable to expect port maintainers to take up the > work and classify their maintained ports for you to save you an > additional 2GB of cheap flash storage? Letting the appliance-market slip away to other platforms should be avoided. > At a certain scale those > trade-offs might make sense for you, but I suspect most FreeBSD port > maintainers and FreeBSD users don't mind a few 100 kB of documentation > and headers on their systems. Aren't there easier solutions which don't > require a lot of manual work? Using the pkg-plist of packages by removing those files not in bin/ or lib/ might solve approx. 80% of the problem. Someone's willing to test this 8-} ? -- pi@opsec.eu +49 171 3101372 4 years to go !
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20161014112514.GH51420>