[HEADSUP & CFT] pkg 1.0rc1 and schedule

[Bryan Drewery]

On 7/13/2012 10:36 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 07/13/2012 05:26 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
>> On Thursday, July 12, 2012 5:16:41 pm Doug Barton wrote:
>>> On 07/12/2012 02:11 PM, Craig Rodrigues wrote:
>>>> You might want to view Baptiste's pkgng presentation at BSDCan:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Hxq7AHZ27I
>>>
>>> Sure, the next time I have an hour to spare.
>>>
>>> I don't think what I'm asking for is unreasonable. One could even
>>> conclude that answering those 3 questions should have been a
>>> prerequisite for starting down this road in the first place.
>>
>> One could also assume that other people in the Project aren't morons and do 
>> actually put thought into the things they do for starters
> 
> I certainly *want* to believe that. But considering the giant mess that
> portmgr + Baptiste made of the changes to the OPTIONS framework, that
> only touches a fraction of the ports, my willingness to have faith in
> "them" to do it right is near zero.

There's a *major* difference in the testing effort and community
involvement in these 2 projects. OPTIONSng had maybe a handful of
testers over a shorter period of time.

PKGNG has had 40+ contributors and has been in development since 2010.
It's been presented and discussed at multiple conferences and dev
summits. Many people have been building their own packages with PKGNG
for months now, greatly raising the testing coverage on the ports tree.

> 
> Not to mention that I've been asking for a project plan for pkg since
> long before it even hit the ports tree in beta. What I'm asking for
> should have been done already considering that this change will affect
> *every* port, and *every* user. So either it hasn't actually been done,
> or the PTB are refusing to provide it.

http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2012-January/031533.html

I find bapt's research in that post to be evident that a lot of thought
and time did go into planning this.

> 
> Also, please keep in mind that I was criticized for *not* speaking up
> about the OPTIONS changes, now I'm being criticized *for* speaking up
> prior to pkg going live. In spite of the fact that I'm doing my best to
> (repeatedly) be clear that I'm not against the project, I just want to
> know more about it.
> 
>> Also, when other 
>> people have taken time to explain an large decision because you are too lazy 
>> to invest the time doesn't really help your case).
> 
> Um, I'm too lazy? I've read everything that's been written on pkg to
> date. Have you? 90% of it is "how to" type stuff that doesn't address
> what we need. The other 10% is so vague and general as to be useless as
> a project plan.

Have you watched the BSDCan presentation video yet? It is very
compelling and exciting.

> 
> You're an experienced project manager John. If someone who worked for
> you came to you with a plan this vague ("modern" foo, "decent" bar), for
> a critical system, how would you respond? (And yes, I realize that no
> one around here works for me, that isn't my point at all.)
> 
>> In terms of the first feature (binary upgrades), the truth is that if you have 
>> more than 5 machines to manage, our current pkg tools completely suck.  There 
>> is no automated upgrade mechanism.  If you want one you have to write your own 
>> set of infrastructure to do the right collection of pkg_delete/pkg_adds.  
>> Certainly there is no support in the current package tools for doing batch 
>> upgrades (i.e. upgrading from one completely package set to another).  pkgng 
>> adds that feature, and I find it a must for supporting large installations of 
>> machines that need automated management.
> 
> And as I wrote previously, I've been there and done that, so yes, I'm
> interested in the feature. But I'd like to know more about the plans for
> it so that those of us who *do* have experience in this topic can share
> that, and we can avoid having to reinvent the wheel. Or worse, putting
> out something half-assed that uses up a lot of developer cycles and
> doesn't get the job done.

So get involved! Come help. Contribute.

> 
> Doug


-- 
Regards,
Bryan Drewery
bdrewery at freenode/EFNet