Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 16:41:28 -0600 From: Grouchy Sysadmin <sysadmin@grouchysysadmin.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: New packaging approach Message-ID: <483d6c09-af4e-5d4a-0681-79498fa3b756@grouchysysadmin.com> In-Reply-To: <1c6fbb48-6029-2d93-8fff-675ef800b3c2@columbus.rr.com> References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1712100018070.47298@bucksport.safeport.com> <07f48e07-ce70-7a26-ea19-fd389375afb4@columbus.rr.com> <alpine.BSF.2.20.1712101201270.91490@fledge.watson.org> <1c6fbb48-6029-2d93-8fff-675ef800b3c2@columbus.rr.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12/10/2017 02:44 PM, Baho Utot wrote:
>
> On 12/10/2017 1:54 PM, doug wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 10 Dec 2017, Baho Utot wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/10/2017 12:33 AM, DTD wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, 9 Dec 2017, Polytropon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> However, I am not sure how the new packaging approach will handle
>>>>> this. As you might have read, pkg will be used for installing and
>>>>> upgrading OS files in the future, so there will not be the big
>>>>> difference "freebsd-update" and "pkg update" / "pkg upgrade".
>>>>
>>>> Where can I read about this? If this leads to dependency issues
>>>> similar to those encountered with desktops, my reaction is more of
>>>> 'oh s--t' rather then 'oh boy'. Back to the days when the odd or
>>>> even versions numbers were for those of us (read me) who do not
>>>> track Stable for similar reasons.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The way the packaging of base is currently being done will*guarantee
>>> a great level of OH SHIT.
>>
>> First, I will qualify my comments by saying I am an end user. I did
>> take Kurt McKusick's internals course a decade or so ago. Never ended
>> up going anywhere with C but it was/is a good way to understand the
>> workings and to be a better sysadmin. My experience with FreeBSD is
>> that once release engineering was fully integrated into the upgrade
>> process in the 4.x's, maybe the version 5 era (memory goes shortly
>> after the tolerance for coding 12 hrs/day) I have never had any
>> issues through cvsup, Subversion, and freebsd-update. If you follow
>> the releases, they work. Maybe if you are developing a port or are a
>> contributor to the base, things are not so rosy. But here in userland
>> things are better managed than IBM did with MFT, MVT into MVS. I'm
>> pretty sure those guys got paid pretty well and did not have to have
>> a day job to do what they really wanted to.
>>
>> That's a really wordy way to say I disagree with the idea that
>> development of the base OS has been mis-handled. In server-land since
>> 4.5 no gotcha's here (as a keeper of servers). Things are a bit
>> rougher if you want to run a FreeBSD workstation. On my current
>> desktop I have gimp, libre office and my window manager of choice.
>> 613 packages and items built from ports. The pkg frame-work is much
>> improved over the old pkg_add et all. However, the number of
>> combinations of {613,n} where n is the number of shared libraries,
>> dynamic and static is a large number (finite but unbounded). And all
>> involved have to get all the dependencies right to have zero problems.
>>
>> My concern is, if it works don't fix it. And, if you must, I would
>> like to start getting up to speed on it ASAP. I have access to every
>> freebsd list but have not found a discussion of this. My only request
>> is to be pointed to where I can follow the discussion.
>
> Have you ever used the "packaged base" If not you don't have a clue to
> just how bad it is
>
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to
> "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Perhaps https://wiki.freebsd.org/PkgBase would help shed some light on
things.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?483d6c09-af4e-5d4a-0681-79498fa3b756>