Re: Packaging of base system

If memory serves me right, Brian Candler wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 12:55:42AM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> > As this comes up all the time, I'd say just do it.  People here will
> > talk your ear off.
> 
> OK. I am just a bit dubious about starting a large chunk of work, only to be
> told later "we're not going to commit this, the consensus here is we don't
> want to do it this way because X / Y / Z"

The way to do this (and maybe this is already obvious to you) is to
start with as small a chunk of work as you can do (think "proof of
concept" or even "implementation notes")...don't try to get it all
perfect before putting it out for comments / feedback / bikesheds.  In
the worst case, if it turns out that everybody hates the idea, you've at
least cut your losses.

You probably want some early feedback from re_at_ (once they've recovered
from getting 5.4 out).

Honestly I'm not sure if I like this idea or not.  My most recent
experience with a fully packaged system is with RH/FC Linux
distributions and many times I feel like I'm in a twisty little maze of
RPMs, all different.  You seem to be proposing a more coarse-grained
packaging, which I think is more workable.

> Incidentally, do we have a current status on this?
> http://people.freebsd.org/~kientzle/libarchive/libpkg.3.txt
>
> This looks like a pre-requisite for turning the base system into packages.

You could just email Tim and ask him.

Bruce.