HEADS UP: Release schedule for 2006
jrhett at svcolo.com
Thu Jan 5 01:07:31 PST 2006
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 03:38:20PM +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> I agree with Brooks. I don't recall ever seeing a message from -core
> (or anyone else talking on behalf of the Project) stating that code to
> make binary updates possible would not be integrated. For that matter,
> I don't recall ever seeing code offered to implement such a feature.
As stated before, let me find some threaded archives and I'll find the
relevant topics. Perhaps it wasn't -core that vetoed it, but it was
harshly fought against for ivory tower reasons, and nobody from -core ever
stood up to show interest.
> Core OS packages have been discussed but I don't recall the idea ever
> being vetoed. Some work have been done in breaking bits of the base OS
> out into packages (perl, games and UUCP come to mind) but packaging the
> entire system is a major undertaking. In any case, I don't see how
> packaging the system would help you. Taking Solaris as an example of
> an OS which is broken up into lots of packages, patches don't replace
> whole packages, they replace individual files.
Obviously the details need to be ironed out. The current freebsd package
system is certainly missing a few key features (in my mind) but most
everyone agrees on the basics.
Packaged cores allow identification of "what you have".
Package databases can store "what you have changed".
Package databases can store "how to back out the change".
This is pretty much the only things that prevent freebsd-update from
working perfectly in production environments, to name the most obvious
candidate for adapting to this job.
SVcolo : Silicon Valley Colocation
More information about the freebsd-stable