From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Wed Apr 20 11:19:34 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 6617CB15AD9 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 11:19:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from 000.fbsd@quip.cz) Received: from elsa.codelab.cz (elsa.codelab.cz [94.124.105.4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A07A17E8; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 11:19:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from 000.fbsd@quip.cz) Received: from elsa.codelab.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by elsa.codelab.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0095628432; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 13:19:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: from illbsd.quip.test (ip-86-49-16-209.net.upcbroadband.cz [86.49.16.209]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by elsa.codelab.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B64E928422; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 13:19:23 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <571765BB.3050908@quip.cz> Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 13:19:23 +0200 From: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:35.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/35.0 SeaMonkey/2.32 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nathan Whitehorn , freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8) References: <76093.1461096570@critter.freebsd.dk> <5716AD65.8070007@shrew.net> <5716FA70.4080604@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <5716FA70.4080604@freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 11:19:34 -0000 > 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. I really like FreeBSD, I am using it for more than 15 years on daily basis. FreeBSD had good and bad times (releases / changes) but one thing stays always the same - still bad communication about new features, work in progress etc. I think it is not too hard to publish papers about new base packages. Proposals, current state, ToDo to better inform users about upcoming changes. I think these informations already exist in some private form between developers. If these informations were more public I think there will be less annoyed posts in mailinglist and more constructive critics / ideas / patches. I did a guick search and found only one closely related page about packaged base: https://wiki.freebsd.org/FreeBSD-ng last edited 2014-03-11 Even this old page has "Known problems" mentioning the situation what we have now in this thread (fed-up people on both sides). So I think this was expected and people involved in this project could have do communication better. I had some concerns about it and some of them were explained and canceled after reading more than 100 posts in this thread. (some concerns remain). I believe if it was written in FreeBSD Wiki, there were not be so much dissapointed posts. I don't want to offend anybody on this list or FreeBSD team. I just think that things like this can and should be communicated better next time. Sysadmins and sysdevelopers have different point of view to a lot of things and it is better to talk about it before things are done and cannot be undone. Miroslav Lachman