CFT: FreeBSD Package Base

[Cy Schubert]

In message <201904291441.x3TEfMid072751 at gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>, "Rodney W. 
Grimes"
writes:
> > On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 10:09 AM Rodney W. Grimes <
> > freebsd-rwg at gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > >
> > > > Correct, this is ZFS only. And it's something we're using specific to
> > > FreeNAS / TrueOS, which is why I didn't originally mention it as apart of
> > > our CFT.
> > >
> > > Then please it is "CFT: FreeNAS/TrueOS pkg base, ZFS only",
> > > calling this FreeBSD pkg base when it is not was wrong,
> > > and miss leading.
> > >
> > 
> > Sorry, I disagree.
> Which is fine.
>
> > This pkg base is independent of the ZFS tool we're using
> > to wrangle boot-environments. Hence why it wasn't mentioned in the CFT.
> > These base packages work the same as existing in-tree pkg base on UFS, no
> > difference. If anything are probably safer due to being able to update all
> > of userland in single extract operation, so you don't have out of order
> > extraction of libc or some such.
>
> You missed the major string change and focused on the edge,
> No comment on calling iXsystems :stuff: FreeBSD instead of FreeNAS/TrueOS?
>
> That was the major point of my statement, your miss leading the user
> community, you yourself said this would never be imported into FreeBSD
> base, so I see no reason that it should be called "FreeBSD package Base",
> as it is not, that is a different project.

Taking the last comment on this thread to ask a question and maybe 
refocus a little.

The discussion about granularity begs the question, why pkgbase in the 
first place? My impression was that it allowed people to select which 
components they wanted to either create a lean installation or mix and 
match base packages and ports (possibly with flavours to install in 
/usr rather than $LOCALBASE) such that maybe person A wanted a stock 
install while person B wanted to replace, picking a random example, BSD 
tar with GNU tar. Isn't that the real advantage of pkgbase?

If OTOH it's binary updates V 2.0, what's the point? I'm a little 
rhetorical here but you get my point. If I want ipfw instead pf or 
ipfilter instead of the others I should have the freedom. Similarly if 
I want vim instead of vi I should have the choice to install vim as 
/usr/bin/vi. Otherwise all the effort to replace binary updates makes 
no sense.


-- 
Cheers,
Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert at cschubert.com>
FreeBSD UNIX:  <cy at FreeBSD.org>   Web:  http://www.FreeBSD.org

	The need of the many outweighs the greed of the few.