Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 07:56:13 +0200 From: Lars Engels <lme@FreeBSD.org> To: <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: FreeBSD problems and preliminary ways to solve Message-ID: <37fed82f77901f0e44abddc6d86895c3@mail.0x20.net> In-Reply-To: <4E4DD059.50403@freebsd.org> References: "<slrnj4oiiq.21rg.vadim_nuclight@kernblitz.nuclight.avtf.net>" <1144162985.20110818235011@serebryakov.spb.ru> <slrnj4r2q8.2853.vadim_nuclight@kernblitz.nuclight.avtf.net> <4E4DD059.50403@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 19:54:17 -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: > On 8/18/11 2:59 PM, Vadim Goncharov wrote: >> Hi Lev Serebryakov! >> >> On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 23:50:11 +0400; Lev Serebryakov wrote about 'Re: >> FreeBSD problems and preliminary ways to solve': >> >>>> 8) There is no -STABLE supported branches in ports. >>> I want to be more precise here: not -STABLE, but all -RELEASE >>> branches, where "upstream" version of ports/packages never changes, >>> and only security bugfixes are backported. >> To be even more precise, they need a guarantee that automatic >> updates >> will not break anything so that it could be put to cron like >> "apt-cron". >> This goal could be satisfied by another means, I hope: FreeBSD >> developers >> unlikely to have enough time/efforts to keep it for *all* -RELEASE >> branches, >> but for only chosen ones (e.g. extended security support) - may be. >> > while all the talk about new ports frameworks etc is nice, it is > still annoying that the ports and FreeBSD crews don't take > the *new* PBI infrastructure that is being pused out with PCBSD-9 > as an important move. The new PBI infrastructure should be taken > into the ports system as an important factor. For those who do not > know it, it give a facility somewhat like the what that APPLE > applications work. At the potential (not always) for having redundant > libraries, every PBI package comes with EVERYTHING IT NEEDS. > there are no 'dependnet packages' as such. On install a > survey is made so that if anything is found to be truly duplicated > (different versions of the same library are NOT considered a > duplicate) > then they share, but if not then each package installs and ONLY USES > the stuff that came with it. > > The ramifications of this (in this era of large disks) are immense. > If you unstall all your main applications using PBI, then if you > screw > up your ports installed libraries and development environment when > you > install some new version of the XXX runtime, *your applications keep > working*. > > A case of "it just works". For the life of me I don't understand WHY > there > is this resistance to taking it into the fold. Especially when all > the > work has already been done. It won't replace pkgng and it it won't > replace > ports because it actually uses ports to generate the PBI packages. > But it should be teh default delivery mechanism for binary basic > packages. > > > As I said.. go run an apple for a while and see what it is supposed > to be like. > PBIs are a nice thing but.... The thing that sucked about PBIs at least in PCBSD 8.x is that the PBIs are too big to download. We may all have big disks but there are many people around who don't have fast internet access. E.g. the Firefox PBI is about 100 MB of size and there's a new version of it every few days. Add Thunderbird, VLC and OpenOffice to that list and your're downloading some GBs per month just to get your security holes closed. What is the situation like in PCBSD 9.x? I heard that it was planned to offer update deltas which should be much smaller. If that's so, I'm all for PBIs.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?37fed82f77901f0e44abddc6d86895c3>