Re: avoiding wayland and pkgbase

Hi,

> On 19 Aug 2025, at 12:23, Vadim Goncharov <vadimnuclight@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 11:30:34 +0100
> void <void@f-m.fm> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 04:38:05PM +0100, Lexi Winter wrote:
>>> void:  
>>>> Will we, after pkgbase becomes the default, still be able to build
>>>> world from downloaded sources?  
>>> 
>>> building world from source is required to create the pkgbase packages in
>>> the first place, so yes, but i suspect what you mean is will you be able
>>> to upgrade the system using installkernel/installworld without having to
>>> build packages and upgrade using pkg, in which case yes, nothing will
>>> change about that process in 15.0.  
>> 
>> OK, thanks for confirming. I hope the buildworld/installworld process
>> (doesn't involve pkg) *never* goes away. Not for *any* freebsd version.
>> At the moment, one can build and install RELENG, not just -stable or current.
>> I should have given examples of why I think this way in my initial post,
>> sorry. To explain why, here are some reasons:
>> 
>> 1. a problem happens with a thing in base. It might affect just my
>>    less common use case. A helpful and clueful person makes a patch.
>>    I can apply and install it and not have to reboot if it's userland.
>>    Useful if one is running essential external services and downtime
>>    needs to be planned.
>> 
>> 2. When building a system, it helps to build what is required and no more.
>>    This decreases the attack surface of the installation somewhat.
>>    Subsequent builds against the same src.conf enforce this configuration.
> 
> I think converting the wrong way = to thousand packages (instead of right way 
> "1 for kernel, 1 for freebsd.org origin + ~100 = for every in contrib") was
> exactly for every knob to not build more?
> 
>> The above two points make freebsd as OS very versatile IMO.
>> 
>> 3. Sometimes pkg breaks. I've not yet seen 'make' break.
> 
> I foresee this the main problem with pkgbase when it will get mass deployment.
> Like those chicken-egg problem typical to Linux distros on major upgrades due
> to fact they don't have real base system, separate from packages - which is
> (was) strength of FreeBSD.

+1

I think that fragmenting the base system is a Very Bad Idea. There could certainly be a debate about exactly what should constitute base, but it should be as integral as possible.

> -- 
> WBR, @nuclight
> 

--
Bob Bishop
rb@gid.co.uk