Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 01:30:55 -0400 From: Allan Jude <allanjude@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8) Message-ID: <5717140F.7040808@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.1604200108270.11054@sea.ntplx.net> 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> <201604191755.u3JHtbfS020358@l.mx.sonic.net> <5716775A.2000401@freebsd.org> <5d0fa087-e04a-f775-676c-cc81fdf6c0ab@pinyon.org> <Pine.GSO.4.64.1604200108270.11054@sea.ntplx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2016-04-20 01:12, Daniel Eischen wrote: > On Tue, 19 Apr 2016, Russell L. Carter wrote: >> >> What is missing from this debate is some perspective from the POV of >> actually existing packaging systems. I've been maintaining >> debian-stable + debian-testing systems for over 15 years. The number >> of packaging glitches I've had I can count on one hand. (I've been >> running FreeBSD systems since the *very* beginning.) >> >> It is much easier to maintain my debian systems than my FreeBSD >> systems. Actually, pkg + poudriere is like a dream. Better than >> apt-get, actually. Except right now it doesn't maintain the base >> system. >> >> So, how many packages are actually installed on one of my debian >> boxes? >> >> debian-testing box with fvwm (ie no gnome/kde) userland: >> >> rcarter@aristotle> dpkg --list | wc --lines >> 1571 >> >> FreeBSD-10/stable with the same userland packaged from ports: >> >> rcarter@feyerabend> pkg info | wc -l >> 833 >> >> The debian system, for basically identical functionality, installs 738 >> more packages. Obviously the FreeBSD box has no packages for the base >> system, so that is probably a significant part of the difference in >> installed packages. And the debian box is dramatically easier to >> maintain. I typically will drag a debian box across several debian >> release cycles, i.e., 6+ years, w/o ever doing anything more >> complicated than doing apt-get update; apt-get dist-upgrade every week >> or so. > > For one of our Solaris 11 boxes, which also serves as a VNC > thin client server and NFS server, we have: > > [sol11] $ pkg list | wc -l > 968 > > That server includes the gnome desktop, firefox, thunderbird, > perl, python, wireshark, CDR tools, etc. So arguably, it is > comparable to my FreeBSD desktop at home with KDE, firefox, > thunderbird, and similar tools. For that FreeBSD box, and > just for ports packages (since I don't have base pkg'd): > > [freebsd11] $ pkg info | wc -l > 865 > > [And it really bothers me that FreeBSD 'pkg list' behaves > like 'pkg files' or similar should. It seems intuitive > that 'pkg list' should list the packages, not all the files > in all the packages.] > > If you add in 750+ FreeBSD base packages (1600+), that seems > like a very large number of packages. And upgrading ports > packages is not always painless. For the 865 FreeBSD packages > I have installed, only 27 of them are explicit - the rest are > dependencies. I do not look forward to updating my packages, > even with poudriere. There is usually manual intervention > required. So it is with this experience that I do sort of > cringe at having 750+ FreeBSD base packages. > > I do like maintaining Solaris 11 boxes much better with their > pkg management, much better than the old patchadm. > does 'pkg prime-list' give you watch you are looking for? (pkgs you explicitly installed) -- Allan Jude
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5717140F.7040808>