pkgng 1.0 release schedule, and HEAD switch to pkgng by default schedule

Garrett Cooper yanegomi at
Tue Aug 21 21:43:15 UTC 2012

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Doug Barton <dougb at> wrote:
> On 8/21/2012 1:08 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
>> On Aug 21, 2012, at 1:51 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
>>> On 8/21/2012 12:42 PM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:38:04PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
>>>>> On 8/21/2012 12:05 PM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>>>>>> 1/ if it fits the schedule: get rid of pkg_* tools in
>>>>>> current to be able to have a fully pkgng only 10-RELEASE
>>>>> I think it would fit better with historic precedents to make
>>>>> pkg optional (but default on) in 10, and mandatory in 11. As
>>>>> stated before, I'm fine with removing pkg_* tools from 10 if
>>>>> there is robust support for them in the ports tree.
>>>>> I know you're excited about this project, but let's not lose
>>>>> sight of how big a change this is, and how important ports are
>>>>> to the project.
>>>> That was what "if it fits the schedule" was about.
>>> I think what I'm trying to say, ever so politely, is that what
>>> you're suggesting isn't even an option, so it shouldn't be
>>> discussed.
>> If you are fine with removing them if there's robust support, how can
>> you also be suggesting that it is impossible and shouldn't be talked
>> about?
> Those address different parts of the problem. Making pkg mandatory in 10
> is different from where the old pkg_* tools end up. The command line
> tools are just the tip of the iceberg, there are a lot of interactions
> behind the scenes.
>> Personally, I think we should handle this the same way that other
>> replacement tools have been done, which is close to what Baptiste has
>> proposed.  If the new tools are totally awesome, we have replaced old
>> tools.
> I don't think we have ever done a complete replacement of major
> infrastructure in one release. The traditional model has been to
> deprecate in one release, remove in the next.
> And in this case, it doesn't matter how awesome the new tools are, they
> are a MAJOR paradigm shift for how users interact with ports, and we are
> going to have a lot of users who take years to transition their
> installed base. No matter how much we may want to move fast on this, it
> just isn't going to be possible.

    What Doug mentioned (and I don't think was really considered, but
is valid) would break people that use pkg_* outside of ports. I know
of at least two instances where this would be the case (one case that
uses pkg_* directly, and another case that uses libpkg from pkg_*
    I know it's delaying the inevitable (pkg_* is going to go away),
but we shouldn't count our chickens before they've hatched as far as
how pkgng needs to be used and how things might change.
    The optional in 8/9/10, mandatory in 11 proposal seems very sane
and it allows people to get things worked out properly without too
many headaches.

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list