CFT: FreeBSD Package Base

Joe Maloney jmaloney at ixsystems.com
Mon Apr 29 20:12:49 UTC 2019


With CFT version you chose to build, and package individual components such as sendmail with a port option.  That does entirely solve the problem of being able to reinstall sendmail after the fact without a rebuild of the userland (base) port but perhaps base flavors could solve that problem assuming flavors could extend beyond python.

Joe Maloney
Quality Engineering Manager / iXsystems
Enterprise Storage & Servers Driven By Open Source

> On Apr 29, 2019, at 3:31 PM, Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert at cschubert.com> wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-current at freebsd.org mailing list
> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"



More information about the freebsd-stable mailing list