Hello,
On 2/11/16 7:22 PM, Royce Williams wrote:
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 11:17 AM, John Marino <freebs...@marino.st> wrote:
On 2/11/2016 9:08 PM, Royce Williams wrote:
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 10:33 AM, John Marino <freebs...@marino.st> wrote:
On 2/11/2016 8:25 PM, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
On 07.02.2016 17:28, John Marino wrote:
ports-mgmt/synth. I would love to hear what signficant thing
portmaster can do that Synth can't. (honestly)
Be installed FROM PORTS without all this build-one-more-gcc stuff.
Ada? For *port*management* tool? Are you joking?
Let me guess. You've spent actually 0.0 nanoseconds preparing on the
subject before providing this enlightened take for the list.
Having read the entire thread, separate from the relative merits of
Synth, the core of Lev's incredulity isn't that off the mark.
On the face of it, Synth requiring ncurses seems reasonable ... but
its Ada dependency is a bit of a mild POLA violation.
Don't get me wrong -- I actually think Ada is pretty cool, and Lev
could have been nicer about it ;), but he's essentially right.
People's instincts are that software management is core functionality,
and should have few unusual dependencies.
My earlier side-thread point stands. FreeBSD software management is
fragmented. Until that is resolved, a lot of time and effort will be
wasted treating the symptoms.
Actually, you missed the fact that synth (nor poudriere) doesnt
re-invent anything. Both are tightly integrated with pkg(8). You spoke
of both as if they were similar to portupgrade.
The "wrapper situation" that you proposed is already here. So the whole
"fragmented" thing is not really true.
Is the abstraction is happening at the equivalent level here? The
platforms that I'm thinking of -- that appear to have already solved
this entire class of problem long ago -- feature wrappers around
apt-get, not wrappers around dpkg.
I'm advocating that we stop quasi-providing four different flavors of
apt-get. Until there is a single and official mechanism for both
dependency resolution and configuration option management, the
fragmentation remains.
Sadly, I also use dpkg-based systems, not my first choice, but because
sometimes they're the best currently available tool for the job at hand.
I'd need about thirty hands to use my fingers to count how many times
apt-get has left me with a broken package system, though aptitude
usually is able to fix that. Most often that has happened after adding a
third party repo (it happened recently with using MariDB's own repo
instead of the official package) or when compiling from source and
trying to delete unnecessary cruft. The biggest drawback to those
systems is that compiling software and registering it can be a pain in
the ass. The second biggest problem is those systems (Debian and Ubuntu
specifically) are built around users who are totally willing to have the
developers choose which options will be compiled in to "official" and
"non-official" repos. That is, people who compile their own binaries are
really an afterthought in the Debian and Ubuntu world. Some might call
that a strength, and yes, dpkg is a nice system for people who want that
kind of thing. It's made Debian based systems very popular, no doubt
about it.
FreeBSD is different in that regard. The ports system is one of the
things that makes it great. Being able to choose whether to compile
everything, compile some ports and use official packages (or
non-official repos) for others, or entirely to use pre-built binaries is
one of the great strengths of FreeBSD and is one of the features that
distinguishes it from most flavors of GNU/Linux. There are even tools
for creating repos fairly easily. Have you ever tried to write a spec
file for an RPM based distro? Ugh! Unfortunately, dpkg is not designed
for people in those first two categories above. It can be made to work,
but requires much more effort. Add in systemd and the nightmare continues...
This discussion is aimed at people who prefer to compile at least some
of their own binaries, else they wouldn't need Portmaster or Synth or
poudriere or portupgrade. Really and truly, and with due respect,
speaking about dpkg is really a diversion, unintentional as it may be,
and detracts from your main point about a totally unified package/ports
system, which you believe belongs in base. I don't entirely disagree
with that, but having choices about what wraps around pkg(8) should be
up to the user. I use poudriere. For my purposes it's the best available
tool. Even if you have half a dozen jails on one box poudriere + pkg
makes distributing binaries to those jails a joy. Synth might do the
same. Portmaster might be satisfactory for building a small number of
ports in a system that mostly uses official packages. Portupgrade, if
you can live with the ruby dependency and the occasional risk that it
will crap out when upgrading a dependency, still works well for solitary
systems using only ports. My point is that the main tool is there. It's
pkg(8). It does a _reasonably_ good job of sussing out what's necessary,
installing only run dependencies, and avoiding "dependency hell". For
people who use only official packages I'd daresay it's superior to
apt-get. Can it be improved? Yes. I have a wishlist in fact. However,
it's a young tool that really is excellent, especially compared to what
was (not) present previously. What tools, if any, a user chooses to
employ around pkg is up to that user. On Debian and Ubuntu I need both
apt-* tools and aptitude. On FreeBSD I currently use poudriere. Others
only need pkg itself.
In my use case, I compile everything myself because I like to customize
options and there also may be a slight control issue there as well. ;) I
use poudriere and maintain different repos for different options. Just
the other day I spun up a new one for the yet to committed PHP 7.0
ports. It took a couple of minutes to do, though compiling some of the
modules was an effort - separate issue. I created a jail, added that
repo, installed php70, and was ready to test. To do that on Debian would
probably have been a lot more effort, though I imagine someone has a
repo out there with packages, if I wanted to use someone else's
packages...
Synth is a binary. There's no POLA there.
If there were no ports system, and everything was package-driven, I'd
agree. Synth and its cousins exist because people work from ports --
which means that dependencies matter.
There's no requirement to build from ports, that's an unsubstanciated
invention. Notice that not a single person could defend that position
after a challenge. There's no technical basis for it; it's just emotional.
The laissez-faire "there's no requirement to build from ports" that
permeates FreeBSD is exactly what's wrong. The fact that half of the
documentation and quasi-official tools tell people "hey, use one of
these three ports management tools, or maybe packages, pick what works
for you -- oh, and be sure to check /usr/ports/UPDATING every time you
touch any port or package" is a deep symptom of this fragmentation.
In a straight fly-off against any of the tools, Synth wins hands down
with any objective measurement. Poudriere is slightly more bulletproof
and more appropriate for a cluster (as it was targetted at) but for
average user Synth is better suited.
It's a concurrent builder. Ada is a concurrent language. How is its
suitability even a debate?
Because FreeBSD software management itself is not purely package based.
As long as the ports system exists (and I think it should!), the
management of compilation requirements -- especially for something
that might need to be bootstrapped early, like a software management
tool -- is a valid topic.
To be clear: except for the Ada/ruby/whatever dependency chain, my
beef isn't with Synth qua Synth. It's that every time we spin up Yet
Another Optional Software Management Tool, we fragment further. If
Synth becomes the holy grail of package management -- so compelling
that it becomes the only choice people would want to make, which is
what I think we need -- then it should become part of base.
If that happened, would we want to ship with Ada in base? If not, why not?
This is a good point. I still don't understand why pkg(8) is not in the
base (though I imagine there's a reason and it takes less than a minute
to install). There can't be many users who install a base system and use
it without a single additional piece of software. However, for my $0.02,
that is the only change I'd make to base at this point with respect to
package management, aside from my pkg(8) wishlist. As an aside, and
fwiw, unless there is a non-GPL'd Ada compiler out there, we won't see
Ada or any Ada-based binaries in base, even if Synth turns out to be the
best thing since sliced bread.
--
Jim Ohlstein
"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the
difference." - Mark Twain
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
