From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Fri Mar 11 14:05:17 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 807A5ACC792; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 14:05:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from slw@zxy.spb.ru) Received: from zxy.spb.ru (zxy.spb.ru [195.70.199.98]) (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 3D660A39; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 14:05:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from slw@zxy.spb.ru) Received: from slw by zxy.spb.ru with local (Exim 4.86 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1aeNgn-000CqR-Sj; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 17:05:13 +0300 Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 17:05:13 +0300 From: Slawa Olhovchenkov To: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> Cc: Baptiste Daroussin , David Chisnall , Glen Barber , freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-pkgbase@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8) Message-ID: <20160311140513.GQ70809@zxy.spb.ru> References: <20160302235429.GD75641@FreeBSD.org> <20160308124016.GA70809@zxy.spb.ru> <20160308131847.GP1531@FreeBSD.org> <20160308151459.GB70809@zxy.spb.ru> <05A039B7-AA9A-47BB-B68E-89D9D5627D20@FreeBSD.org> <20160311120511.GN31877@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <20160311131055.GO70809@zxy.spb.ru> <20160311132059.GA11339@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <20160311133157.GP70809@zxy.spb.ru> <56E2CEF9.3080200@quip.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <56E2CEF9.3080200@quip.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: slw@zxy.spb.ru X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zxy.spb.ru); SAEximRunCond expanded to false 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: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 14:05:17 -0000 On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 02:58:17PM +0100, Miroslav Lachman wrote: > Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote on 03/11/2016 14:31: > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 02:20:59PM +0100, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 04:10:56PM +0300, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: > >>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 01:05:11PM +0100, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > [...] > > >>> Case of only a few monolitic packages is essentiality simple then case > >>> of 1000 combined packages. > >> pkg info -a on one diff with pkg info -a on the other > >> for the full content: pkg info -a --raw on both end and diff them. > >> > >> That should cover your case, no? > > > > No, that may cause a much false positive: slight different versions, > > unimportant packets and etc. In 1000 packets this give to many noise. > > If you don't need version numbers, you can list just package names > pkg query %n > or package origins > pkg query %o currently: [...] base base base base base base base base base base base base base base base base base base base [...] > Anything else is on your side and even if I understand your complaints > (and I agree with some of them) I don't thing it will change anything on > the future of packaged base. > So it is better to spend our time on working local solution to new > problem. It has some pros and some cons and I hope the pros will > outweigh cons. I am don't talk 'this is imposible'. I am talk 'this is awkward'. What purpose for paclaging base system? packaging for packaging? Or packaging for simplify and comfortably management, maintance and upgrade?