Re: [HEADSUP & CFT] pkg 1.0rc1 and schedule

On 13 July 2012 17:02, Bryan Drewery <bryan_at_shatow.net> wrote:
> On 7/13/2012 10:36 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
>> On 07/13/2012 05:26 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
>>> On Thursday, July 12, 2012 5:16:41 pm Doug Barton wrote:
>>>> On 07/12/2012 02:11 PM, Craig Rodrigues wrote:
>>>>> You might want to view Baptiste's pkgng presentation at BSDCan:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Hxq7AHZ27I
>>>>
>>>> Sure, the next time I have an hour to spare.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think what I'm asking for is unreasonable. One could even
>>>> conclude that answering those 3 questions should have been a
>>>> prerequisite for starting down this road in the first place.
>>>
>>> One could also assume that other people in the Project aren't morons and do
>>> actually put thought into the things they do for starters
>>
>> I certainly *want* to believe that. But considering the giant mess that
>> portmgr + Baptiste made of the changes to the OPTIONS framework, that
>> only touches a fraction of the ports, my willingness to have faith in
>> "them" to do it right is near zero.
>
> There's a *major* difference in the testing effort and community
> involvement in these 2 projects. OPTIONSng had maybe a handful of
> testers over a shorter period of time.
>
> PKGNG has had 40+ contributors and has been in development since 2010.
> It's been presented and discussed at multiple conferences and dev
> summits. Many people have been building their own packages with PKGNG
> for months now, greatly raising the testing coverage on the ports tree.
>
>>
>> Not to mention that I've been asking for a project plan for pkg since
>> long before it even hit the ports tree in beta. What I'm asking for
>> should have been done already considering that this change will affect
>> *every* port, and *every* user. So either it hasn't actually been done,
>> or the PTB are refusing to provide it.
>
> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2012-January/031533.html
>
> I find bapt's research in that post to be evident that a lot of thought
> and time did go into planning this.
>
>>
>> Also, please keep in mind that I was criticized for *not* speaking up
>> about the OPTIONS changes, now I'm being criticized *for* speaking up
>> prior to pkg going live. In spite of the fact that I'm doing my best to
>> (repeatedly) be clear that I'm not against the project, I just want to
>> know more about it.
>>
>>> Also, when other
>>> people have taken time to explain an large decision because you are too lazy
>>> to invest the time doesn't really help your case).
>>
>> Um, I'm too lazy? I've read everything that's been written on pkg to
>> date. Have you? 90% of it is "how to" type stuff that doesn't address
>> what we need. The other 10% is so vague and general as to be useless as
>> a project plan.
>
> Have you watched the BSDCan presentation video yet? It is very
> compelling and exciting.
>
>>
>> You're an experienced project manager John. If someone who worked for
>> you came to you with a plan this vague ("modern" foo, "decent" bar), for
>> a critical system, how would you respond? (And yes, I realize that no
>> one around here works for me, that isn't my point at all.)
>>
>>> In terms of the first feature (binary upgrades), the truth is that if you have
>>> more than 5 machines to manage, our current pkg tools completely suck.  There
>>> is no automated upgrade mechanism.  If you want one you have to write your own
>>> set of infrastructure to do the right collection of pkg_delete/pkg_adds.
>>> Certainly there is no support in the current package tools for doing batch
>>> upgrades (i.e. upgrading from one completely package set to another).  pkgng
>>> adds that feature, and I find it a must for supporting large installations of
>>> machines that need automated management.
>>
>> And as I wrote previously, I've been there and done that, so yes, I'm
>> interested in the feature. But I'd like to know more about the plans for
>> it so that those of us who *do* have experience in this topic can share
>> that, and we can avoid having to reinvent the wheel. Or worse, putting
>> out something half-assed that uses up a lot of developer cycles and
>> doesn't get the job done.
>
> So get involved! Come help. Contribute.
>

And PLEASE get that portmaster patch integrated.

Chris