Re: ports and PBIs

Am 03.05.2010 21:55, schrieb Garrett Cooper:
> Also, for services like cups, there could have per-application
> virtualized networking stacks
Hi Garret,

one jail per application -- theoretically the best idea -- no conflict
due to the elimination of cross-dependencies.
Havig updated a server with 10 jails last week going thru 11 boring
mergemaster sessions I'm not convinced this a practicable way.

Considering my problems with the update of all installed applications my
keypoints are:
1) We have too much applications to manage ports, oftly you have to use
2 different applications to do the job, so even forcing all applications
to compile/update doesn't eliminate the need to set up the update more
than once.
2) Ports like db (40-50), python (2, 25, 26) need a proper handling by
the ports management. Over time I had installed 4 db versions; apr
doesn't compile with db >48.
3) Configuration dependencies are not properly handled (Installing xorg
in a jail due to a unneeded configuration default is no fun).

The goal of PBIs as Julian proposed is to simplify the automatic
generation of simple apps.

To achieve this goal we get another ports management application and
hope it handles also the non trivial tasks of the non simple apps.

If the PBIs come with all libraries and resources we get even more
problems with multiple db installations not less.

Are configuration dependencies (exim with or without ldap) addressed
with the PBI format?

I believe we need a more precise way to express the dependencies between
the ports.

Reinhard