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

[Matthew Seaman]

On 04/03/2016 01:09, Glen Barber wrote:
>> 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?

> This was intentional.  If, for example, there is a libxo bug that
> requires an EN or SA, we do not want the binary upgrade to exceed more
> than required.

Bapt's presentation at BSDCan last year explained the reasoning behind
how the base was divided up into packages.  He said at the time that it
was impossible to do in a way that wouldn't get complaints from someone,
so he opted for maximum flexibility -- meaning a lot of fine-grained
packages plus a heirarchy of meta-packages to make it easy to install
and manage package sets in commonly used combinations.

So, for instance, there might be a 'FreeBSD-debug' that would depend on
'FreeBSD-library-debug', 'FreeBSD-application-debug' etc.  and
'FreeBSD-library-debug' would depend on the individual
'FreeBSD-libfoo-debug' packages that actually install the symbol files.
 (So you could strip all the debug symbols from your install by 'pkg
delete -fR FreeBSD-debug')

I'm not seeing any of those meta packages in the base repo built
following Glen's instructions -- is there some other step necessary to
generate them?

	Cheers,

	Matthew


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 931 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-pkgbase/attachments/20160304/476a8c41/attachment.sig>