[CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

[Jonathan Anderson]

On 19 Apr 2016, at 19:42, Matthew Grooms wrote:

> I suspect that most of the negative reactions people are having is due 
> to the line being blurred between the base system and everything else. 
> Historically there has always been a clear distinction. By packaging 
> base and throwing it in with everything else, you erase that 
> distinction.

I certainly agree that the distinction is changing, but I wouldn't say 
it's being erased. In fact, I'd argue that a packaged base system will 
clarify the conversation around the base/not-base dichotomy by forcing 
us to think about the underlying distinctions rather than of the 
delivery mechanism. For instance, I'd say that the biggest blurring 
between base and ports doesn't come from packages, it comes from vendor 
branches.

If the base system is "an atomic, maintained-by-us snapshot of all the 
stuff you need to get a computer running and bootstrap your 
applications"... well, first, stop me here if I'm wrong!

Assuming I'm not entirely wrong: we have lots of code in base that is 
"built by the FreeBSD project" and entirely maintained by "us". However, 
there is also a lot of code in base that comes from an upstream source 
and is primarily maintained by "them" (who may overlap with "us"), yet 
is essential to building or using the FreeBSD base system. This is a 
necessity of modern life (compilers are good), and yet I'm not entirely 
clear on the distinction between a lightly-patched compiler that lives 
in our source tree and a lightly-patched compiler that lives in the 
ports tree. So, now that the base compiler and a ports compiler will be 
installed using the same tools, it might be worth thinking about how 
they're really different (if at all).

Not that there are any good answers...


Jon
--
Jonathan Anderson
jonathan at FreeBSD.org