Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

Maybe what the "too many packages" folks need to do is write some code 
to hide that it's so many packages.

:)

I think the rule of two feet should be applied here.

What we have is people that have worked quite hard to bring us something 
that we can easily work with, and on the other hand some folks that want 
something they consider even better.  Personally I can't see how having 
the system less granular is better, since having it MORE granular is 
actually harder work.

Can someone on the "too many packages" campaign here explain to me how 
having too fine a granularity stops you from making macro packages 
containing packages?

Because honestly I can't see how having granularity hurts at all when if 
someone wanted to make it less granular all they would have to do is 
make some meta-packages.

-Alfred

On 4/18/16 7:23 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
> On 2016-04-18 7:01 PM, Roger Marquis wrote:
>> Can you explain what would be accomplished by testing all or even a
>> fraction of the possible permutations of base package combinations?  We
>> don't do that for ports.
>
> The ports tree isn't a mandatory part of the system. And by definition 
> it could not be tested that way, since it offers so many alternative 
> implementations of specific functionality.
>
>> Other operating systems don't do that for
>> their base packages.
>
> I'm pretty sure Solaris had some fairly hard-core regression tests to 
> ensure basic system functionality wouldn't be compromised by 'oddball' 
> selections of packages offered up at install time.
>
> > Honestly, some of us are wondering what exactly is
> > behind some of these concerns regarding base packages.
>
> The concern is from all of us UNIX dinosaurs who predate the 
> fine-grained packaging environment, which just worked, and who now rip 
> our (little remaining) hair out due to unsolvable package dependency 
> loops in the Linux machines we are forced to administer in order to 
> pay rent.  For me, as a sysadmin, I derive a negative benefit from 
> this optimization.
>
> I guess what I'm really asking is: where is the peer reviewed research 
> that shows this actually improves things for the not-1% of FreeBSD users?
>
> --lyndon
>
> P.S.  Don't turn this into a pissing match.  I really want to know how 
> this is of net benefit to everyone.  But I don't want hyperbole.  I 
> have looked at a lot of, e.g., USENIX and ACM, bibliographies and 
> papers for justification for this, and I can't find it.  It would 
> really help (me, at least) if someone could take a moment to point me 
> at demonstrable evidence of the benefits of this model.
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-current_at_freebsd.org mailing list
> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to 
> "freebsd-current-unsubscribe_at_freebsd.org"
>