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

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Peter Wemm <peter_at_wemm.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 5:14 AM, Fbsd8 <fbsd8_at_a1poweruser.com> wrote:
> > What I want to know is this new pkg system going to remove the
> requirement
> > of having the complete ports tree on my system?
> >
> > What I am looking for in an port system, is to install a port and any
> files
> > needed for the parent port and its dependents to automatically be
> > downloaded. So in the end my system ports tree only contain the files
> used
> > to install the ports I use and their dependents.
>
> That is precisely what pkgng is for.
>
> At the risk of over-simplifying:
> * Generally eliminate the need for having /usr/ports installed for end
> user consumers of freebsd if you have no desire to compile ports with
> custom options.
> * Generally eliminate the need for layers over the top of pkg* like
> portupgrade/portmaster/portmanager for those people.
> * Play nicely with people who *are* building some (or all) of their
> packages from /usr/ports.
> * Provide enough look and feel compatibility with the old pkg_* tools
> so people will feel enough at home.
> * Assimilate an existing pkg_* machine.
> * Store complete metadata so that going foward we have much better
> support for package sets - eg: package repositories with custom
> options that play nicely with official packages.
> * Be extensible so that we can add to it as we go forward.
>
> In the new world order, things like portupgrade and portmanager tend
> to be used to manage interactions between personally build ports from
> /usr/ports and external binary packages.  If you continue to build
> from /usr/ports, the only thing that changes is bsd.port.mk uses a
> different command to register a package and you still use
> portupgrade/portmaster/whatever to orchestrate your personal package
> rebuilding.  (Well, portmaster does if you apply the simple patch to
> it).
>
> pkg-1.0 is primarily an infrastructure change.   Instead of metadata
> being stored in discrete +FOO and +BAR files in a .tgz file, it is
> stored in a structured, extensible file.  Instead of an incomplete set
> of metadata being stored in /var/db/pkg/* and having to be augmented
> by reaching over to /usr/ports/*, a full set of data is stored in a
> .sqlite file.  Instead of version numbers being baked into the package
> name as an ascii string, the package system uses version numbers as
> first class metadata.
>
> In reality, not much will change at the switch throwing, except that
> of having good reason to be afraid of "pkg_add -r", you'll be able to
> reasonably expect it's replacement (pkg install) to work.  And a bunch
> of people who have a /usr/ports tree will suddenly wonder why they
> even have it there at all.  It becomes incredibly convenient and fast
> to use packages.
>
> --
> Peter Wemm - peter_at_wemm.org; peter_at_FreeBSD.org; peter_at_yahoo-inc.com;
> KI6FJV
> "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5
> "If Java had true garbage collection, most programs would delete
> themselves upon execution." -- Robert Sewell
>
>
I am by no means speaking for the pkgng direction, goal or for portmgr, but
I thought that
this thread message spoke to the goal pretty clearly for me.

http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2012-June/076395.html

If this is in fact the case, I don't know if this is documented anywhere.

-jgh

--
Jason Helfman          | FreeBSD Committer
jgh_at_FreeBSD.org     | http://people.freebsd.org/~jgh