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

On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 02:39:24PM +0100, Miroslav Lachman wrote:

> Glen Barber wrote on 03/08/2016 14:18:
> > On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 03:40:16PM +0300, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> >> Packaging of individual utilites is useless (total 19MB vs
> >> 30.7+2.8+20.7+2.9) and incorrect (for example, WITHOUT_ACCT not only
> >> don't build accton/lastcomm/sa but also cut off accaunting code from
> >> kernel for space saving and perforamce).
> >>
> >
> > Packaging individual utilities is not useless, depending on who you ask.
> > One of the first replies I received when starting separating userland
> > utilities into separate packages was further splitting rwho(1) and
> > rwhod(8) into different packages, the use case being not necessarily
> > needing (or wanting) the rwho(1) utility on systems where rwhod(8) runs.
> 
> I didn't tried pkg base yet but I read posts on mailinglist. I 
> understand the need of separating and splitting on the one side and I 
> understand the fear of too long list of packages when one need to do 
> some maintenance (update or upgrade). So one idea come to my mind - what 
> about some meta-packages like "utilities, kernel, libs32, debug" hiding 
> all details about real packages if there are some env variable or 
> command line switch turned on?
> Meta-packages is used in current ports for things like PHP extensions. 
> These ports meta-packages are not hiding real packages so this can be 
> improved for base packages.

Complexly not only in long list of packages:
- comparing two list from different setups
- checking for missing of install some packages
- checking for installed additional packages
- depends calculating (not all host run on power hardware, I am use
VIA C3, for example)

All of this don't resolving by meta-packages.

> It is just a quick idea how to satisfy both sides ;)
> 
> Miroslav Lachman
>