Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 07:30:07 -0800 From: Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@freebsd.org> To: Glen Barber <gjb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-src-projects@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r295280 - projects/release-pkg/release/packages Message-ID: <56B8B47F.7060001@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20160208111726.GD63576@FreeBSD.org> References: <201602042120.u14LKQ2b026571@repo.freebsd.org> <56B3C34B.1080501@freebsd.org> <56B3C6E4.60907@FreeBSD.org> <56B3C7A3.5000502@FreeBSD.org> <56B3EF97.9040205@freebsd.org> <20160205005113.GD13799@FreeBSD.org> <56B3F5A2.7070600@freebsd.org> <20160205013040.GG13799@FreeBSD.org> <56B82697.4090800@freebsd.org> <20160208111726.GD63576@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 02/08/16 03:17, Glen Barber wrote: > On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 09:24:39PM -0800, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: >> Thank you very much for the overview! I had a couple of questions inline, >> but please feel free to answer them at your leisure. >> >> On 02/04/16 17:30, Glen Barber wrote: >>>> Maybe I missed them? The talks I've seen (e.g. >>>> https://www.bsdcan.org/2015/schedule/events/563.en.html) describe some >>>> technical problems, the idea that pkg is nicer than freebsd-update (true >>>> enough), and that having some more granularity (bind and sendmail separated >>>> out, for instance) in installation would be a good thing. That all sounds >>>> perfectly reasonable and good, but is also pretty nebulous. >>>> >>>> It would be good have something a little more detailed on what a packaged >>>> base system actually looks like: what kinds of things would constitute a >>>> package? >>> Short answer: A set of binaries and libraries upon which the binaries >>> require to run. >> So would this imply that, say, ls would be its own package? Or that we would >> have something less granular (so that things like sendmail would be a >> package)? It seems like this is something still in flux, so there may not be >> an answer yet. >> > There is no easy way to answer this, because WITH_*/WITHOUT_* knobs are > being taken into account. > > As I see things now, everything in bin/ and sbin/ would be included in > the main, default package unless there is a MK_*=no test in the build. > Those would be split into a separate package. > > So no, ls(1) is not expected to be in its own package, but sendmail(8) > is. That makes sense. Thanks! >>>> are those packages (e.g. for sendmail) interchangeable with ones >>> >from ports? >>> Separate package repositories. Separate package naming scheme. >>> Completely independent. >>> >>>> would the pkg tool be imported into base? >>> No. >> Doesn't this complicate the installer tremendously? The install ISOs would >> need pkg on them and couldn't be built only from the base system anymore. > Yes, this is still being worked out. This should be solvable with > a tmpfs(5) /usr/local mount on the ISO, however we cannot enforce > a network connection to bootstrap pkg(8). An option is to include > pkg(8) as part of the on-disc repository itself. > > There multiple additional layers of "how are we going to [...]" that > tail off of this alone. > > Glen > That is indeed a puzzler. Something to think about as we move closer to having this in the tree, I guess. -Nathan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?56B8B47F.7060001>