svn commit: r243554 - in head/usr.sbin/pkg_install: add create delete info lib updating version

[Baptiste Daroussin]

On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 10:45:26AM -0800, Stanislav Sedov wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 08:52:52 +0000
> Chris Rees <utisoft at gmail.com> mentioned:
> 
> > 
> > UPDATING, yes.  Also as I reminded you in IRC last week, users of -CURRENT
> > are expected to follow -current at .  Users of ports are also strongly
> > recommended to read -ports-announce.
> 
> Repeating that several times does not make it true.

This was also sent to current@
> 
> > 
> > What are you trying to achieve here?  You discussed this previously, and
> > got exactly the same answer.  There were extensive discussions over it in
> > ports at .
> 
> I'm trying to point out, that this commit (and previous pkgng ones) was made
> without proper peer review and consulations, which is a recommended practice
> in THIS project.  Doing so hurts not only the committer reputation (which I
> frankly do not care about), but the project image as a whole.

That is good I don't care about my reputation either. But I do care about the
project image, and lots of very large companies with large freebsd setup sent me
mails thank the pkgng people for our work and how much it simplifies their life
about managing their servers, because pkgng can reliably upgrade packages, and
fits nicely with puppet/chef/cfengine. they also appreciate how easy a new
FreeBSD installation is with pkgng.

Of course pkgng is far from perfect but it is actually better than pkg_install
and the bottleneck to improve the pkgng is now the ports tree which lacks lot of
thing to be able to produce better binary packages. And for that we need pkgng
to be the default backend of the ports tree.
> 
> I really don't want to go in and revert these changes, but I want to find a
> reasonable solution.  It's not the first time an unreviewed ports-related
> change is being committed to a tree by that hurts us, who actually use FreeBSD
> and not consider it a personal playground.

Sorry but I consider companies with 1K+ server using FreeBSD not a personnal
playground, and lot's of them are really happy with the direction the ports tree
and package management on FreeBSD is taking

Bapt
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-src-all/attachments/20121203/e0299cf9/attachment.sig>