On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 07:40:10PM +0000, Glen Barber wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:21:28PM -0700, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: > > > > > > On 04/18/16 12:14, Glen Barber wrote: > > >On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:01:46PM -0700, Sean Fagan wrote: > > >>On Apr 18, 2016, at 11:52 AM, Lev Serebryakov <lev_at_FreeBSD.org> wrote: > > >>>I understand, that maybe it is too late, but ARE YOU KIDDING?! 755 > > >>>packages?! WHY?! What are reasons and goals to split base in such > > >>>enormous number of packages? > > >>Just a guess, having done the same thing myself: it means that updates can be > > >>more targeted. > > >> > > >This is exactly the reason, which has been answered numerous times. > > > > > >Glen > > > > > > > That's a good reason -- and a very nice outcome of having base system > > packages -- but I worry that it may be going too far. The most granular > > updates would be if every file were its own package, which is obviously > > crazy, and so there is some middle ground. Needing to grab a whole new > > base.txz is probably too much (60 MB), but splitting that into even 6 or 7 > > pieces moves the updates to replacements with typical size (a few MB) that > > are no larger than typical package updates for ports. > > This granularity allows easy removal of things that may not be wanted > (such as *-debug*, *-profile*, etc.) on systems with little storage. On > one of my testing systems, I removed the tests packages and all debug > and profiling, and the number of base system packages is 383. Easy select from list of 1k items?! You kidding?Received on Mon Apr 18 2016 - 18:02:12 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:41:04 UTC