On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 02:58:17PM +0100, Miroslav Lachman wrote: > Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote on 03/11/2016 14:31: > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 02:20:59PM +0100, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 04:10:56PM +0300, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: > >>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 01:05:11PM +0100, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > [...] > > >>> Case of only a few monolitic packages is essentiality simple then case > >>> of 1000 combined packages. > >> pkg info -a on one diff with pkg info -a on the other > >> for the full content: pkg info -a --raw on both end and diff them. > >> > >> That should cover your case, no? > > > > No, that may cause a much false positive: slight different versions, > > unimportant packets and etc. In 1000 packets this give to many noise. > > If you don't need version numbers, you can list just package names > pkg query %n > or package origins > pkg query %o currently: [...] base base base base base base base base base base base base base base base base base base base [...] > Anything else is on your side and even if I understand your complaints > (and I agree with some of them) I don't thing it will change anything on > the future of packaged base. > So it is better to spend our time on working local solution to new > problem. It has some pros and some cons and I hope the pros will > outweigh cons. I am don't talk 'this is imposible'. I am talk 'this is awkward'. What purpose for paclaging base system? packaging for packaging? Or packaging for simplify and comfortably management, maintance and upgrade?Received on Fri Mar 11 2016 - 13:05:17 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:41:03 UTC