Re: ports and PBIs

On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 1:26 AM, Reinhard Haller
<reinhard.haller_at_interactive-net.de> wrote:
> 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.

    I'm not going to feign knowing what's going on completely in this
regard; if we were pointed to the software spec(s) for PBIs and the
tools, it would probably make analysis easier.
Thanks,
-Garrett