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

On 2016-04-18 8:17 PM, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> 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.

It's the *I have to put it back together* part that's annoying.  I 
didn't break something that has worked, forever.  It shouldn't be 
incumbent on me to un-break someone else's work.

Now if the system ships with each-file-in-a-package, fine.  Just give me 
gross subsets that make my life as a sysadmin liveable.   E.g., base 
POSIX functionality should be a 'group' package.  And I would hope, the 
default installation package.  I would go for the argument that, e.g., 
the dev stuff (cc, yacc, lex) could be split off, but at least include 
the headers that match what's in /lib and /usr/lib, in a compiler 
agnostic set.  Since the point of packages is to allow for selections of 
optional software.

--lyndon