> Please, consider ops and admins, who must support old installations, > often made by other, not-reachable, people, and stuff like this, Ops and admins such as myself are exactly the ones who will benefit most from base packages. Being able run to: 1) 'pkg audit' and see that base ssl has a vulnerability, 2) 'pkg install -f' to update 3) only those specific parts of base that need to be updated is far simpler (KIS) and faster than what we go through now. More than a few formerly bsd shops have migrated to linux simply to avoid regular iterations of cd /usr/src; svn up; make cleanworld; make buildworld installworld ... The use cases for granular base packages are more numerous than even these obvious ones. The downside OTOH, seems to consist of not much more than the size of the package list. If I missed other issues please do clarify. Will base packages be improved, sure, but they're already more useful and bugfree than pkgng when it was mandated. In any case, if I'm not mistaken base packages are entirely optional. Roger MarquisReceived on Tue Apr 19 2016 - 15:55:37 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:41:04 UTC