Re: Packaging of base system

El Martes, 10 de Mayo de 2005 21:35, Peter Jeremy escribió:
> Overall, I think that packaging the base system is a good idea for
> end-users.  In theory, it means that upgrades can be handled by a
> wrapper around portupgrade and the pkg_* tools can be used to verify
> system consistency.  OTOH, I'm not sure that it is of much benefit to
> developers - unless you replace "make world" with portupgrade, the
> base system package information will be out-of-date following the
> first installworld.  It might be useful asking for opinions in some
> of the "end user" lists as well as here.
>
> On Tue, 2005-May-10 07:34:16 -0700, Bruce A. Mah wrote:
> >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.
>
> OTOH, Solaris and Tru64 are fully packaged and this seems to work -
> though both are (probably too) fine grained.  I suspect that fine
> grained makes the dependencies easier to manage, but in the case of
> both Solaris and Tru64, working out whether you want a particular
> package or not is virtually impossible.  If you do go the
> fine-grained approach, it may be worthwhile having a group of
> "dependency" packages that are gathered in a section headed "you
> probably don't want to individually select these packages - they will
> be installed
> automatically if required".
>

For the packaging problem (not the update), take a look into:
http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/distrib/sets/

--
  josemi