svn commit: r295280 - projects/release-pkg/release/packages

[Nathan Whitehorn]

On 02/08/16 03:17, Glen Barber wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 09:24:39PM -0800, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
>> Thank you very much for the overview! I had a couple of questions inline,
>> but please feel free to answer them at your leisure.
>>
>> On 02/04/16 17:30, Glen Barber wrote:
>>>> Maybe I missed them? The talks I've seen (e.g.
>>>> https://www.bsdcan.org/2015/schedule/events/563.en.html) describe some
>>>> technical problems, the idea that pkg is nicer than freebsd-update (true
>>>> enough), and that having some more granularity (bind and sendmail separated
>>>> out, for instance) in installation would be a good thing. That all sounds
>>>> perfectly reasonable and good, but is also pretty nebulous.
>>>>
>>>> It would be good have something a little more detailed on what a packaged
>>>> base system actually looks like: what kinds of things would constitute a
>>>> package?
>>> Short answer: A set of binaries and libraries upon which the binaries
>>> require to run.
>> So would this imply that, say, ls would be its own package? Or that we would
>> have something less granular (so that things like sendmail would be a
>> package)? It seems like this is something still in flux, so there may not be
>> an answer yet.
>>
> There is no easy way to answer this, because WITH_*/WITHOUT_* knobs are
> being taken into account.
>
> As I see things now, everything in bin/ and sbin/ would be included in
> the main, default package unless there is a MK_*=no test in the build.
> Those would be split into a separate package.
>
> So no, ls(1) is not expected to be in its own package, but sendmail(8)
> is.

That makes sense. Thanks!

>>>> are those packages (e.g. for sendmail) interchangeable with ones
>>> >from ports?
>>> Separate package repositories.  Separate package naming scheme.
>>> Completely independent.
>>>
>>>> would the pkg tool be imported into base?
>>> No.
>> Doesn't this complicate the installer tremendously? The install ISOs would
>> need pkg on them and couldn't be built only from the base system anymore.
> Yes, this is still being worked out.  This should be solvable with
> a tmpfs(5) /usr/local mount on the ISO, however we cannot enforce
> a network connection to bootstrap pkg(8).  An option is to include
> pkg(8) as part of the on-disc repository itself.
>
> There multiple additional layers of "how are we going to [...]" that
> tail off of this alone.
>
> Glen
>
That is indeed a puzzler. Something to think about as we move closer to 
having this in the tree, I guess.
-Nathan