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

Hi!

> This works fine (after a source rebuild of pkg), but for tools like 
> portupgrade (from ports), which use pkg under the hood to handle 
> dependency checks.  pkg against the ports tree vs. pkg against my 
> LOCALBASE=/usr/pkg were conflicting.  So I asked some questions about how 
> to resolve this.
>  The response was bizarre.  Wanting to use pkg with a 
> different directory seemed almost offensive to the people who answered. 

It was probably the result of estimating the amount of work
necessary to implement this.

> There was no thought of even considering the use case.  I ended up filing 
> a bugzilla report, but I see that got close with 'works as intended' a 
> couple of days ago.

As usual, if someone complains about some PR being handled
ungraceful, would you please, in the name of reason, name
the PR, so that others can check the details without
searching the open PR pool for it ?

> I can't see how pkg as a base package manager would allow me 
> to continue with my ports->/usr/pkg mapping.

If you analyse the code and fix the places where it needs to
be adapted, it would probably work.

> I really think the biggest problem people have at the moment is the 
> complete and utter lack of respect core and the pkg crew have for the end 
> users of the system.

Does it help if I explain to you that there is almost no-one there
that can listen to your complaints ? Literally ? There are
only a small handful of people that work on core or pkg crew, and
they work on so many things that they only skim the lists,
because of lack of time ? pkg-crew might be 1-2 folks that
try to cope with the flood of requests and try to triage
according to "can be solved in less time than...".

It has nothing to do with lack of respect.

> I'm pretty sure we all get WHY this work is being 
> done.  We don't all AGREE with why it's being done.  And that is the 
> conversation we are trying to have.  But every time we try to have it, we 
> get slammed down as a bunch of ungrateful whining non-coders.

Sending this email costs me 10mins or so. Committing 1-2 port updates
takes the same amount of time. So, what is my choice ?

> Lots of people wrote a lot of lines of code for Linux.  Is the argument 
> that we should just adopt that?  Because it's written, it must be good?

No, that's not the argument the other side is making. They
work as much as possible, but there are too few people to work
on it.

> You guys need to get over that and come back to the table to have a 
> rational discussion with the vast majority of people who actually USE this 
> OS.

Suggesting that their behaviour is not rational does not help 8-)

> All glory to Juniper and Citrix and everyone else who packages the OS 
> into their various 'appliances'.  I use both of the above at work, and 
> believe me, for the amount of money they take out of my pocket, they can 
> hire their own release engineers to deal with this internally without 
> inflicting this on everyone else.

Not even they can do that 8-) If I look at the issues citrix
has to solve, they probably are spread thin 8-} If I look
at the messages a juniper EX switch sends during an upgrade,
some of which look strange, their engineering dept. is probably
at some limit, too.

> To reiterate: packages are good.  In moderation.  As with all other 
> things.  But they have to solve the general case, and pkg - both the tool 
> and the methodology in its current and pending incarnations - does not.

>From what I learn, pkg in its current form solves *a lot* of problems,
and yes, not 100% of all problems. So let's work on the other
ones step by step.

> I, and others, are trying to have a real conversation about this.  But the 
> blowback is incredible.  Let alone incredulous.

Thanks for that attempt. We need to find resources (time, skill,
code) to have this conversation, and right now, all of that is
in very short supply.

-- 
pi_at_opsec.eu            +49 171 3101372                         4 years to go !