From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Wed Apr 20 03:41:38 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 E27F8B1543B for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 03:41:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from nwhitehorn@freebsd.org) Received: from d.mail.sonic.net (d.mail.sonic.net [64.142.111.50]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF8541E10 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 03:41:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from nwhitehorn@freebsd.org) Received: from zeppelin.tachypleus.net (75-101-50-44.static.sonic.net [75.101.50.44]) (authenticated bits=0) by d.mail.sonic.net (8.15.1/8.15.1) with ESMTPSA id u3K3favx021295 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 20:41:36 -0700 Subject: Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8) To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org References: <76093.1461096570@critter.freebsd.dk> <5716AD65.8070007@shrew.net> From: Nathan Whitehorn Message-ID: <5716FA70.4080604@freebsd.org> Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 20:41:36 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Sonic-CAuth: UmFuZG9tSVZmpbnmXs9xQamuAKTEzccinDPW8tt1FJUAMA0pCUvqzaVBH4B9RUpUjsGTVvia0zK5FFgGEwyzIWjX5EeG4ehivx5rPIPYAvY= X-Sonic-ID: C;pGxXyKkG5hGqpreqjlfmnQ== M;2FSayKkG5hGqpreqjlfmnQ== X-Spam-Flag: No X-Sonic-Spam-Details: 0.0/5.0 by cerberusd 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: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 03:41:39 -0000 On 04/19/16 20:15, Warner Losh wrote: >> On Apr 19, 2016, at 4:12 PM, Matthew Grooms wrote: >> >> On 4/19/2016 3:09 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >>> As far as I know, nobody is taking the source code or the Makefiles >>> away, so if somebody doesn't like the system being distributed with >>> pkg, they can very well roll their own. >>> >>> It's nice to see the level of enthusiasm the FreeBSD project can >>> muster, I just wish it wasn't always enthusiasm for stopping progress. >>> >> Maybe I missed an email in this thread, but I don't recall anyone completely rejecting the idea of packaging the base system. What I see is a discussion related to doing it in the best way possible. > Sadly the tenor and tone of the discussion isn’t one where progress is made. The tone has been a bit toxic and demanding, which grinds people into dust, rather than motivating them to fix things. You might call it a discussion, but it reads to me more as a bunch of angry villagers storming the castle. No good can come from that. Tone down the outrage by a factor of 100 and try to have the conversation again. > > Warner Yes, and that tone raises everyone's defensive hackles, which is never good. I'm going to make a patch for a reduced package count and hopefully we can restart this discussion then. It would also be nice to get a statement of what the intended scope of these patches is from some of the people involved in the project. It's a major change to the system and it would be nice to have some kind of architectural document about what is happening. I'm not sure, for instance, what the release for 11 looks like with these changes, what changes need to be made to the installer (something of particular interest to me), how we build install media now that base is no longer self-contained (due to lack of pkg), what specific problems were intended to be solved, how package dependencies work, etc. Something like a few-page white paper would be *really* helpful for those of us who weren't at the BSDcan where this was discussed. Even a wiki page would help a lot. -Nathan