On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 12:00:36PM +0300, Dan Partelly wrote: > IMO, the number of packages per-se is not a problem as long as you > can manage them without arcane commands, aliases, pipe - filters, > or scripts. (they all have their place, but less , the better) My > point is that I don't really want to keep on my head a Unix hacker > hat. I (and presumably many other humans ) like simple things,which > allow me to type a short command (preferably the whole system should > be simple enough to be explained in one-two pages in handbook) , > wait for completion, and get on with my life. Yes and no. While number of packages don't see outside internal -- this is irrelevant. After possibility of update individual package -- nuber of packages is impotant. Take fresh 11.0. Before 11.1 update only kernel. What you system have? 11.0? 11.1-RC3? How you name it? How identify it for take support on forum or mail list? How name system, updated all w/o compiler? or only some services? Currently we have simple naming: 10.3-RC1, 10.3-RELEASE, 10.3-p7, 10.3-STABLE r123456. This is shortly and clearly identify system to anyone. How do this with many packages? I am describe in -pkgbase expirence of updating system. How I am can naming this (my) system? Solaris don't ship new version often and don't have rollover updates. I think, first step may be split to only two package (kernel and world) and resolve many other issuses: distinc base packages from port packages, beadm compatibility, /etc and config updates (/etc/rc.d is not config but currently allowed to editing, this is distinct from plain ports configs) and others. After expirence with this next step will be more clear. > When I said people should pay more attention to Redmond and Cupertino, this is what I meant. UIs are important. Easy service management, fault reporting and so on should be automated. We shouldn't waste our time doing what the computer should do in the first place. Most people want to get the job done, so they can proceed with what is important for them. I am very sorry if this is so offensive to some people that they feel attacked, but unfortunately there aint much I can do to alleviate this. > > > > > 1) The number of packages that the base system has. > > 2) The user interface by which the packages are presented. > > > > I believe (and, please, correct me if I’m wrong), that all of the complaints in this thread have been about the UI, not about the underlying mechanism. That’s not to say that they’re unimportant (quite the reverse), but that they can be solved concurrently with the task of preparing the base system for distribution in packaged form. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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"Received on Wed Apr 20 2016 - 07:48:05 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:41:04 UTC