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

[Garrett Wollman]

<<On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 23:54:29 +0000, Glen Barber <gjb at FreeBSD.org> said:

> After checking out the project branch, build the userland and kernel as
> normal with the 'buildworld' and 'buildkernel' targets.  Afterward,
> packages can be created with the 'packages' target.

>  # cd /usr/src
>  # make [make flags] buildworld
>  # make [make flags] buildkernel
>  # make packages

Since I don't have any 11-current machines yet, I tried cross-building
this on my 10.2 build server, and it seems to work just fine, although
pkg(8) whines copiously about "Major OS version upgrade detected.
Running "pkg-static install -f pkg" recommended".  I note also that
"make packages" doesn't work with -jN, but "make release" never worked
in parallel either, and I suspect they break in the same place for the
same underlying reason.  I did this build as myself with -DNO_ROOT and
everything went fine; a spot check of the packages shows the correct
file ownership.

> At present, the base system consists of 755 packages with the default
> build (empty src.conf(5) and make.conf(5)) for amd64.  The number of
> packages depends on several factors, but for most cases a runtime binary
> is split into several components.  In particular, most shared libraries
> are individually packaged, in addition to debugging symbols, profiling
> libraries, and 32-bit packaged separately.

I was prepared to freak out at this, but with half the packages
consisting of debugging symbols for binaries that ship stripped in
10.x anyway (so most users would never need nor install those
packages), the number isn't so unreasonable.  I get 531 non-"-debug-"
packages here, which is still more than I'd like but tolerable given
how many of them will never be installed.  (Could some of those
library packages be consolidated?  I'm not convinced that it makes
much sense to have all the different -lib32-* variants given the
normal use case is runtime-only.  And I don't see the profit in having
separate libusb, libusbhid, libutil, libvmmapi, libwrap, libxo, liby,
libypclnt, libz, etc. packages, either.)

Also, for the "FreeBSD-kernel" package, why is the kernel
configuration name downcased, and why is the opposite of "-debug-"
"-release-" as opposed to "" like all the other packages.

Maybe all of the CDDL-licensed stuff should be in a (meta)package of
its own?

-GAWollman