Re: pkgng 1.0 release schedule, and HEAD switch to pkgng by default schedule
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:52:43AM -0700, Kevin Oberman wrote: > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 7:09 AM, Warner Losh wrote: > > > > On Aug 21, 2012, at 7:58 PM, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: > > > >> On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Doug Barton wrote: > >> > >>> I don't think we have ever done a complete replacement of major > >>> infrastructure in one release. > >> > >> You mean like sysinstall can be used as an installer on 9 that would > >> do something meaningful with the current infrastructure we provide? > > > > You understood my oblique sysinstall reference... The 'can't do it in one > > release' is a red herring. The current package system is by no means as > > good as sysinstall was before it was replaced. The new one is much better > > and deserves a shot of 'replace in one' if it proves to be ready. Anything > > contrary to that is just obstructionism. > > I don't agree. I know that I am not the only one who uses the pkgdb in > internal scripts. While getting rid of pkg_* will be a wonderful thing > and, for most of the systems I deal with the switch will happen very > soon, a couple will need major re-working to replace the use of the > pkgdb. Since these are systems that I usually run either the latest > STABLE (RELENG_9 at this time) or CURRENT, this would prevent moving > to CURRENT or 10-STABLE if I can't do so and still have the option of > sticking with the old system for a while. This is especially true for > 1.0, until things like adding SVN revision and (hopefully) options to > the DB to make working with a combination of packages and ports > reasonable. I can't imagine EVER getting away from building some > things from source using ports at any time. > > Yes, I understand that getting rid of pkg_ will allow things to be > done that will be difficult (impossible?) to retrofit into pkg_*, but > this is a HUGE change for most admins, much bigger than the sysinstall > change as it will mostly impact on systems currently running FreeBSD > where sysinstall did not. > > Please, please be very careful about pulling the life support plug on pkg_*. > -- > R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer > E-mail: kob6...@gmail.com > ___ > freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" That is the reason why I updated today the pkg_install ports so that people will be able to keep an up to date pkg_* tools for the time the ports tree will support it, (meaning at least EOL of 9.1 and EOL of 8.3) regards, Bapt pgpsikzzHjNlb.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: pkgng 1.0 release schedule, and HEAD switch to pkgng by default schedule
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 7:09 AM, Warner Losh wrote: > > On Aug 21, 2012, at 7:58 PM, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: > >> On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Doug Barton wrote: >> >>> I don't think we have ever done a complete replacement of major >>> infrastructure in one release. >> >> You mean like sysinstall can be used as an installer on 9 that would >> do something meaningful with the current infrastructure we provide? > > You understood my oblique sysinstall reference... The 'can't do it in one > release' is a red herring. The current package system is by no means as good > as sysinstall was before it was replaced. The new one is much better and > deserves a shot of 'replace in one' if it proves to be ready. Anything > contrary to that is just obstructionism. I don't agree. I know that I am not the only one who uses the pkgdb in internal scripts. While getting rid of pkg_* will be a wonderful thing and, for most of the systems I deal with the switch will happen very soon, a couple will need major re-working to replace the use of the pkgdb. Since these are systems that I usually run either the latest STABLE (RELENG_9 at this time) or CURRENT, this would prevent moving to CURRENT or 10-STABLE if I can't do so and still have the option of sticking with the old system for a while. This is especially true for 1.0, until things like adding SVN revision and (hopefully) options to the DB to make working with a combination of packages and ports reasonable. I can't imagine EVER getting away from building some things from source using ports at any time. Yes, I understand that getting rid of pkg_ will allow things to be done that will be difficult (impossible?) to retrofit into pkg_*, but this is a HUGE change for most admins, much bigger than the sysinstall change as it will mostly impact on systems currently running FreeBSD where sysinstall did not. Please, please be very careful about pulling the life support plug on pkg_*. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer E-mail: kob6...@gmail.com ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: pkgng 1.0 release schedule, and HEAD switch to pkgng by default schedule
On Aug 21, 2012, at 7:58 PM, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: > On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Doug Barton wrote: > >> I don't think we have ever done a complete replacement of major >> infrastructure in one release. > > You mean like sysinstall can be used as an installer on 9 that would > do something meaningful with the current infrastructure we provide? You understood my oblique sysinstall reference... The 'can't do it in one release' is a red herring. The current package system is by no means as good as sysinstall was before it was replaced. The new one is much better and deserves a shot of 'replace in one' if it proves to be ready. Anything contrary to that is just obstructionism. Warner ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: pkgng 1.0 release schedule, and HEAD switch to pkgng by default schedule
On 8/21/2012 6:58 PM, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: > On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Doug Barton wrote: > >> I don't think we have ever done a complete replacement of major >> infrastructure in one release. > > You mean like sysinstall can be used as an installer on 9 that would > do something meaningful with the current infrastructure we provide? Given the number of users who complain when sysinstall breaks in 9, I'd say yes. Not to mention that sysinstall is a good example of something that we deprecated in one release and removed in the following release. Furthermore, I don't think of the installer as nearly as critical as the ports collection. Yes, it is important, clearly. But it's something that is likely to happen only once in the lifetime of a system, as opposed to the numerous times that users will interact with the ports. Not to mention all of the enterprise users who bypass it altogether. Aside from the installer part of sysinstall, the post-install config portion has been taken over by bsdconfig. So in HEAD you have 2 new tools that are mandatory that fulfill sysinstall's old role; and in 9 you have those same 2 new tools which are the defaults, but optional. That's exactly how it is supposed to work. Finally, the thing that we have to keep in mind is how different the ports tree is from anything else in the base. The infrastructure of the ports has to support all versions of FreeBSD. So we have to be extra cautious about deprecating things. Of course the upside of pkg is that it (properly) lives in the ports tree itself, which will make innovation much easier in a few years. Doug -- I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. And I will not let what I cannot do interfere with what I can do. -- Edward Everett Hale, (1822 - 1909) ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: pkgng 1.0 release schedule, and HEAD switch to pkgng by default schedule
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 02:43:13PM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote: > > What Doug mentioned (and I don't think was really considered, but > is valid) would break people that use pkg_* outside of ports. I know > of at least two instances where this would be the case (one case that > uses pkg_* directly, and another case that uses libpkg from pkg_* > 0-o...). As to the old libpkg, it only existed for little over a year and only in HEAD and was even removed from there over a year ago, and the commit message clearly states that it should not be used. OTOH, for those using it, the only alternative for them is probably pkgng which is only now turning stable. Erwin -- Erwin Lansinghttp://droso.dk er...@freebsd.orghttp:// www.FreeBSD.org ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: pkgng 1.0 release schedule, and HEAD switch to pkgng by default schedule
On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Doug Barton wrote: I don't think we have ever done a complete replacement of major infrastructure in one release. You mean like sysinstall can be used as an installer on 9 that would do something meaningful with the current infrastructure we provide? -- Bjoern A. Zeeb You have to have visions! Stop bit received. Insert coin for new address family. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: pkgng 1.0 release schedule, and HEAD switch to pkgng by default schedule
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Doug Barton wrote: > On 8/21/2012 1:08 PM, Warner Losh wrote: >> >> On Aug 21, 2012, at 1:51 PM, Doug Barton wrote: >> >>> On 8/21/2012 12:42 PM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:38:04PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > On 8/21/2012 12:05 PM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >> 1/ if it fits the schedule: get rid of pkg_* tools in >> current to be able to have a fully pkgng only 10-RELEASE > > I think it would fit better with historic precedents to make > pkg optional (but default on) in 10, and mandatory in 11. As > stated before, I'm fine with removing pkg_* tools from 10 if > there is robust support for them in the ports tree. > > I know you're excited about this project, but let's not lose > sight of how big a change this is, and how important ports are > to the project. > That was what "if it fits the schedule" was about. >>> >>> I think what I'm trying to say, ever so politely, is that what >>> you're suggesting isn't even an option, so it shouldn't be >>> discussed. >> >> If you are fine with removing them if there's robust support, how can >> you also be suggesting that it is impossible and shouldn't be talked >> about? > > Those address different parts of the problem. Making pkg mandatory in 10 > is different from where the old pkg_* tools end up. The command line > tools are just the tip of the iceberg, there are a lot of interactions > behind the scenes. > >> Personally, I think we should handle this the same way that other >> replacement tools have been done, which is close to what Baptiste has >> proposed. If the new tools are totally awesome, we have replaced old >> tools. > > I don't think we have ever done a complete replacement of major > infrastructure in one release. The traditional model has been to > deprecate in one release, remove in the next. > > And in this case, it doesn't matter how awesome the new tools are, they > are a MAJOR paradigm shift for how users interact with ports, and we are > going to have a lot of users who take years to transition their > installed base. No matter how much we may want to move fast on this, it > just isn't going to be possible. What Doug mentioned (and I don't think was really considered, but is valid) would break people that use pkg_* outside of ports. I know of at least two instances where this would be the case (one case that uses pkg_* directly, and another case that uses libpkg from pkg_* 0-o...). I know it's delaying the inevitable (pkg_* is going to go away), but we shouldn't count our chickens before they've hatched as far as how pkgng needs to be used and how things might change. The optional in 8/9/10, mandatory in 11 proposal seems very sane and it allows people to get things worked out properly without too many headaches. Thanks! -Garrett ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: pkgng 1.0 release schedule, and HEAD switch to pkgng by default schedule
On 8/21/2012 1:08 PM, Warner Losh wrote: > > On Aug 21, 2012, at 1:51 PM, Doug Barton wrote: > >> On 8/21/2012 12:42 PM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:38:04PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: On 8/21/2012 12:05 PM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > 1/ if it fits the schedule: get rid of pkg_* tools in > current to be able to have a fully pkgng only 10-RELEASE I think it would fit better with historic precedents to make pkg optional (but default on) in 10, and mandatory in 11. As stated before, I'm fine with removing pkg_* tools from 10 if there is robust support for them in the ports tree. I know you're excited about this project, but let's not lose sight of how big a change this is, and how important ports are to the project. >>> That was what "if it fits the schedule" was about. >> >> I think what I'm trying to say, ever so politely, is that what >> you're suggesting isn't even an option, so it shouldn't be >> discussed. > > If you are fine with removing them if there's robust support, how can > you also be suggesting that it is impossible and shouldn't be talked > about? Those address different parts of the problem. Making pkg mandatory in 10 is different from where the old pkg_* tools end up. The command line tools are just the tip of the iceberg, there are a lot of interactions behind the scenes. > Personally, I think we should handle this the same way that other > replacement tools have been done, which is close to what Baptiste has > proposed. If the new tools are totally awesome, we have replaced old > tools. I don't think we have ever done a complete replacement of major infrastructure in one release. The traditional model has been to deprecate in one release, remove in the next. And in this case, it doesn't matter how awesome the new tools are, they are a MAJOR paradigm shift for how users interact with ports, and we are going to have a lot of users who take years to transition their installed base. No matter how much we may want to move fast on this, it just isn't going to be possible. > If the new tools are good, but don't cover the older users, > we develop along size. Yes, this is precisely what I'm saying. Sorry if I wasn't clear. -- I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. And I will not let what I cannot do interfere with what I can do. -- Edward Everett Hale, (1822 - 1909) ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: pkgng 1.0 release schedule, and HEAD switch to pkgng by default schedule
On Aug 21, 2012, at 1:51 PM, Doug Barton wrote: > On 8/21/2012 12:42 PM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:38:04PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: >>> On 8/21/2012 12:05 PM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: 1/ if it fits the schedule: get rid of pkg_* tools in current to be able to have a fully pkgng only 10-RELEASE >>> >>> I think it would fit better with historic precedents to make pkg >>> optional (but default on) in 10, and mandatory in 11. As stated >>> before, I'm fine with removing pkg_* tools from 10 if there is >>> robust support for them in the ports tree. >>> >>> I know you're excited about this project, but let's not lose >>> sight of how big a change this is, and how important ports are to >>> the project. >>> >> That was what "if it fits the schedule" was about. > > I think what I'm trying to say, ever so politely, is that what you're > suggesting isn't even an option, so it shouldn't be discussed. If you are fine with removing them if there's robust support, how can you also be suggesting that it is impossible and shouldn't be talked about? Personally, I think we should handle this the same way that other replacement tools have been done, which is close to what Baptiste has proposed. If the new tools are totally awesome, we have replaced old tools. If the new tools are good, but don't cover the older users, we develop along size. If they are lame, but somehow get committed anyway, we take 18 years to replace them with bsdinstall. Warner ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: pkgng 1.0 release schedule, and HEAD switch to pkgng by default schedule
On 8/21/2012 12:42 PM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:38:04PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: >> On 8/21/2012 12:05 PM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >>> 1/ if it fits the schedule: get rid of pkg_* tools in current >>> to be able to have a fully pkgng only 10-RELEASE >> >> I think it would fit better with historic precedents to make pkg >> optional (but default on) in 10, and mandatory in 11. As stated >> before, I'm fine with removing pkg_* tools from 10 if there is >> robust support for them in the ports tree. >> >> I know you're excited about this project, but let's not lose >> sight of how big a change this is, and how important ports are to >> the project. >> > That was what "if it fits the schedule" was about. I think what I'm trying to say, ever so politely, is that what you're suggesting isn't even an option, so it shouldn't be discussed. -- I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. And I will not let what I cannot do interfere with what I can do. -- Edward Everett Hale, (1822 - 1909) ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: pkgng 1.0 release schedule, and HEAD switch to pkgng by default schedule
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:38:04PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > On 8/21/2012 12:05 PM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > 1/ if it fits the schedule: get rid of pkg_* tools in current to be > > able to have a fully pkgng only 10-RELEASE > > I think it would fit better with historic precedents to make pkg > optional (but default on) in 10, and mandatory in 11. As stated > before, I'm fine with removing pkg_* tools from 10 if there is robust > support for them in the ports tree. > > I know you're excited about this project, but let's not lose sight of > how big a change this is, and how important ports are to the project. > That was what "if it fits the schedule" was about. regards, Bapt pgprmJFWctomi.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: pkgng 1.0 release schedule, and HEAD switch to pkgng by default schedule
On 8/21/2012 12:05 PM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > 1/ if it fits the schedule: get rid of pkg_* tools in current to be > able to have a fully pkgng only 10-RELEASE I think it would fit better with historic precedents to make pkg optional (but default on) in 10, and mandatory in 11. As stated before, I'm fine with removing pkg_* tools from 10 if there is robust support for them in the ports tree. I know you're excited about this project, but let's not lose sight of how big a change this is, and how important ports are to the project. Doug -- I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. And I will not let what I cannot do interfere with what I can do. -- Edward Everett Hale, (1822 - 1909) ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: pkgng 1.0 release schedule, and HEAD switch to pkgng by default schedule
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:47:36AM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Doug Barton wrote: > > On 8/21/2012 6:46 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > >> I would also like to just remove pkg_* tools from RELENG_10 if that fits > >> the > >> schedule. > > > > Um, no? > > ... > > > What _would_ be useful is what should have been done many years ago when > > it was first suggested: Move the pkg_* tools to ports. > > It already exists -- it's just out of date / crufty: > > $ make describe > pkg_install-20090902|/usr/ports/ports-mgmt/pkg_install|/usr/local|FreeBSD > -STABLE version of the package > tools|/usr/ports/ports-mgmt/pkg_install/pkg-descr|port...@freebsd.org|ports-mgmt||http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/usr.sbin/pkg_install/ > > > It's too late for 9.1 already, but if you made that change today in > > HEAD, and after 9.1 (but before 8.4) you MFC it to stable/[89], then you > > could theoretically make pkg mandatory after 9.1 EOLs. > > > > To make my point more clear, the ports tree has to support the last > > release to ship with pkg_* tools in the base throughout its lifetime. To > > do anything else would be be a massive POLA violation. > > Agreed. > Thanks, > -Garrett Let's rephrase the plan: 1/ if it fits the schedule: get rid of pkg_* tools in current to be able to have a fully pkgng only 10-RELEASE 2/ switch 9.2 (the ports tree) to pkgng (but keep pkg_* tools maybe drop them, but that is to be discussed to avoid POLA 3/ do the same for 8 once all of our supported release are fully pkgng aware and all the pkg_* release are EOLed, drop support for pkg_* tools from the ports tree. regards, Bapt pgppZLkb3vyvU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: pkgng 1.0 release schedule, and HEAD switch to pkgng by default schedule
On 8/21/2012 11:47 AM, Garrett Cooper wrote: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Doug Barton wrote: >> On 8/21/2012 6:46 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >>> I would also like to just remove pkg_* tools from RELENG_10 if that fits the >>> schedule. >> >> Um, no? > > ... > >> What _would_ be useful is what should have been done many years ago when >> it was first suggested: Move the pkg_* tools to ports. > > It already exists -- it's just out of date / crufty: Right ... I was using "move" as shorthand for several different ideas, including but not limited to the latest version of the code itself, robust support for the code going forward, the primary supported way of using pkg_*, etc. All of these ideas have been discussed in the past, so I was hoping to avoid having to re-discuss them. :) >> It's too late for 9.1 already, but if you made that change today in >> HEAD, and after 9.1 (but before 8.4) you MFC it to stable/[89], then you >> could theoretically make pkg mandatory after 9.1 EOLs. >> >> To make my point more clear, the ports tree has to support the last >> release to ship with pkg_* tools in the base throughout its lifetime. To >> do anything else would be be a massive POLA violation. > > Agreed. Great (and I saw Baptiste's response on this as well). Glad to hear that we're on the same page about something at least. :) -- I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. And I will not let what I cannot do interfere with what I can do. -- Edward Everett Hale, (1822 - 1909) ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: pkgng 1.0 release schedule, and HEAD switch to pkgng by default schedule
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Doug Barton wrote: > On 8/21/2012 6:46 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >> I would also like to just remove pkg_* tools from RELENG_10 if that fits the >> schedule. > > Um, no? ... > What _would_ be useful is what should have been done many years ago when > it was first suggested: Move the pkg_* tools to ports. It already exists -- it's just out of date / crufty: $ make describe pkg_install-20090902|/usr/ports/ports-mgmt/pkg_install|/usr/local|FreeBSD -STABLE version of the package tools|/usr/ports/ports-mgmt/pkg_install/pkg-descr|port...@freebsd.org|ports-mgmt||http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/usr.sbin/pkg_install/ > It's too late for 9.1 already, but if you made that change today in > HEAD, and after 9.1 (but before 8.4) you MFC it to stable/[89], then you > could theoretically make pkg mandatory after 9.1 EOLs. > > To make my point more clear, the ports tree has to support the last > release to ship with pkg_* tools in the base throughout its lifetime. To > do anything else would be be a massive POLA violation. Agreed. Thanks, -Garrett ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: pkgng 1.0 release schedule, and HEAD switch to pkgng by default schedule
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:17:36AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > On 8/21/2012 6:46 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > I would also like to just remove pkg_* tools from RELENG_10 if that fits the > > schedule. > > Um, no? > > Until pkg becomes mandatory (which can't happen for several years) the > pkg_* tools can't be removed altogether. > > What _would_ be useful is what should have been done many years ago when > it was first suggested: Move the pkg_* tools to ports. > > It's too late for 9.1 already, but if you made that change today in > HEAD, and after 9.1 (but before 8.4) you MFC it to stable/[89], then you > could theoretically make pkg mandatory after 9.1 EOLs. > > To make my point more clear, the ports tree has to support the last > release to ship with pkg_* tools in the base throughout its lifetime. To > do anything else would be be a massive POLA violation. > > Doug > > -- > > I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do > something. And I will not let what I cannot do interfere with what > I can do. > -- Edward Everett Hale, (1822 - 1909) that is what I meant of course, sorry if I badly said it at first Bapt pgpu5pCBh5GW0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: pkgng 1.0 release schedule, and HEAD switch to pkgng by default schedule
On 8/21/2012 6:46 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > I would also like to just remove pkg_* tools from RELENG_10 if that fits the > schedule. Um, no? Until pkg becomes mandatory (which can't happen for several years) the pkg_* tools can't be removed altogether. What _would_ be useful is what should have been done many years ago when it was first suggested: Move the pkg_* tools to ports. It's too late for 9.1 already, but if you made that change today in HEAD, and after 9.1 (but before 8.4) you MFC it to stable/[89], then you could theoretically make pkg mandatory after 9.1 EOLs. To make my point more clear, the ports tree has to support the last release to ship with pkg_* tools in the base throughout its lifetime. To do anything else would be be a massive POLA violation. Doug -- I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. And I will not let what I cannot do interfere with what I can do. -- Edward Everett Hale, (1822 - 1909) ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: pkgng 1.0 release schedule, and HEAD switch to pkgng by default schedule
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 6:26 PM, Kimmo Paasiala wrote: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Lawrence Stewart > wrote: >> On 08/21/12 17:04, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 07:05:49AM +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote: On 21/08/2012 00:21, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:09:46AM +0300, Vitaly Magerya wrote: >> Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >>> Please [...] ask question about pkgng [...] >> >> What would be the best practice of mixing ports with packages? >> >> The use case I have in mind is compiling Xorg ports locally >> WITH_NEW_XORG and WITH_KMS, and using packages from >> pkgbeta.freebsd.org for everything else. Is there some mixture of pkg >> and portmaster flags that allows this kind of setup? >> ___ >> freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" > > There is no best practice for that unfortunatly, (as actually) the best > for you > is maybe to build your own pkgng repostories? > http://wiki.freebsd.org/PkgPrimer#Using_poudriere for example? > > We are open to suggestion here :) At the moment, it is about as tricky as mixing locally compiled ports with pkg_tools packages: ie. it might work, or it might leave you a quivering, sobbing mess lost in a pit of dark despair. One thing that should help is a proposal to record metadata like the SVN revision number of the ports tree used to build repository packages into the repository catalogue (repo.sqlite), so users can in principle check out the same revision locally to build their own ports. Unfortunately no one has written that yet, and its probably too late for it to make it into release-1.0. >>> >>> yes but it should definitly find its way to 1.1! >> >> >> Agreed, though ultimately we want to move to making mixing of ports & >> pkgs idiot-proof - something I suspect we're in better shape to do with >> pkgng. As a recently minted roadtester of pkgng and wanting to do the >> same as Vitaly without setting up Poudriere, I had to reverse engineer >> the ports tree svn revision to make sure I could mix and match from >> pkgbeta and stuff I built locally via ports with WITH_NEW_XORG and >> WITH_KMS. This becomes more annoying to manage going forward. >> >> So far I'm enjoying my pkgng experience for the most part and wish to >> thank all those involved in getting it to this stage. >> >> Cheers, >> Lawrence > > What would be needed is a mechanism to query a package repository for > a package with both name and options used to compile the package. > Let's say you have a port installed that requires another port but > that other port must be compiled with a certain option turned on. The > packaging system should be able to tell if the package available from > the remote repository satisfies the requirements or not. The current > system accepts any version of the package because it only looks at the > package name. By 'any version' I mean 'a package with any combination of options' of course, bad wording. -Kimmo ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: pkgng 1.0 release schedule, and HEAD switch to pkgng by default schedule
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Lawrence Stewart wrote: > On 08/21/12 17:04, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 07:05:49AM +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote: >>> On 21/08/2012 00:21, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:09:46AM +0300, Vitaly Magerya wrote: > Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >> Please [...] ask question about pkgng [...] > > What would be the best practice of mixing ports with packages? > > The use case I have in mind is compiling Xorg ports locally > WITH_NEW_XORG and WITH_KMS, and using packages from > pkgbeta.freebsd.org for everything else. Is there some mixture of pkg > and portmaster flags that allows this kind of setup? > ___ > freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" There is no best practice for that unfortunatly, (as actually) the best for you is maybe to build your own pkgng repostories? http://wiki.freebsd.org/PkgPrimer#Using_poudriere for example? We are open to suggestion here :) >>> >>> At the moment, it is about as tricky as mixing locally compiled ports >>> with pkg_tools packages: ie. it might work, or it might leave you a >>> quivering, sobbing mess lost in a pit of dark despair. >>> >>> One thing that should help is a proposal to record metadata like the SVN >>> revision number of the ports tree used to build repository packages into >>> the repository catalogue (repo.sqlite), so users can in principle check >>> out the same revision locally to build their own ports. Unfortunately >>> no one has written that yet, and its probably too late for it to make it >>> into release-1.0. >>> >> >> yes but it should definitly find its way to 1.1! > > > Agreed, though ultimately we want to move to making mixing of ports & > pkgs idiot-proof - something I suspect we're in better shape to do with > pkgng. As a recently minted roadtester of pkgng and wanting to do the > same as Vitaly without setting up Poudriere, I had to reverse engineer > the ports tree svn revision to make sure I could mix and match from > pkgbeta and stuff I built locally via ports with WITH_NEW_XORG and > WITH_KMS. This becomes more annoying to manage going forward. > > So far I'm enjoying my pkgng experience for the most part and wish to > thank all those involved in getting it to this stage. > > Cheers, > Lawrence What would be needed is a mechanism to query a package repository for a package with both name and options used to compile the package. Let's say you have a port installed that requires another port but that other port must be compiled with a certain option turned on. The packaging system should be able to tell if the package available from the remote repository satisfies the requirements or not. The current system accepts any version of the package because it only looks at the package name. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: pkgng 1.0 release schedule, and HEAD switch to pkgng by default schedule
On 08/21/12 17:04, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 07:05:49AM +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote: >> On 21/08/2012 00:21, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:09:46AM +0300, Vitaly Magerya wrote: Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > Please [...] ask question about pkgng [...] What would be the best practice of mixing ports with packages? The use case I have in mind is compiling Xorg ports locally WITH_NEW_XORG and WITH_KMS, and using packages from pkgbeta.freebsd.org for everything else. Is there some mixture of pkg and portmaster flags that allows this kind of setup? ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" >>> >>> There is no best practice for that unfortunatly, (as actually) the best for >>> you >>> is maybe to build your own pkgng repostories? >>> http://wiki.freebsd.org/PkgPrimer#Using_poudriere for example? >>> >>> We are open to suggestion here :) >> >> At the moment, it is about as tricky as mixing locally compiled ports >> with pkg_tools packages: ie. it might work, or it might leave you a >> quivering, sobbing mess lost in a pit of dark despair. >> >> One thing that should help is a proposal to record metadata like the SVN >> revision number of the ports tree used to build repository packages into >> the repository catalogue (repo.sqlite), so users can in principle check >> out the same revision locally to build their own ports. Unfortunately >> no one has written that yet, and its probably too late for it to make it >> into release-1.0. >> > > yes but it should definitly find its way to 1.1! Agreed, though ultimately we want to move to making mixing of ports & pkgs idiot-proof - something I suspect we're in better shape to do with pkgng. As a recently minted roadtester of pkgng and wanting to do the same as Vitaly without setting up Poudriere, I had to reverse engineer the ports tree svn revision to make sure I could mix and match from pkgbeta and stuff I built locally via ports with WITH_NEW_XORG and WITH_KMS. This becomes more annoying to manage going forward. So far I'm enjoying my pkgng experience for the most part and wish to thank all those involved in getting it to this stage. Cheers, Lawrence ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: pkgng 1.0 release schedule, and HEAD switch to pkgng by default schedule
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 03:26:43PM +0200, Jeremie Le Hen wrote: > Hi Baptise, > > On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 09:43:13PM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > > > Since 1.0-rc6 release, everything looks ready for a final release of 1.0, > > I'll > > give more details on the release commit bit :) this is planned for 30th > > august > > 2012. > > > > Current was supposed to switch to pkgng by default today, it has been > > delayed > > until the nvidia-driver is fixed with pkgng. Thanksfully kwm@ and danfe@ has > > been working on this, and the situation should be fixed pretty soon. > > > > Please continue testing pkgng and reporting bugs, if you are new comers do > > not > > hesitate to ask question about pkgng so that we can improve documentation: > > > > The usual links about pkgng: > > - http://wiki.freebsd.org/pkgng > > - http://wiki.freebsd.org/PkgPrimer > > - https://github.com/pkgng/pkgng/blob/master/FAQ.md > > - http://people.freebsd.org/~bapt/pres-pkgng-bsdcan.pdf > > - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Hxq7AHZ27I > > First thank you and all who have worked to make this first release of > pkgng. This is a great milestone in FreeBSD history. > > Supposedly, pkgng will stay opt-in for RELENG_9 and will be the default > (opt-out?) on RELENG_10. During the upgrade from the old branch to the > new one, how do we ensure users will perform the required step > (basically, run pkg2ng) to switch their pkg database to pkgng? Will it > be a note in src/UPDATING and as well in the release notes? > Yes there will be a note in UPDATING, I'm also pondering modifying pkg_* tools to that they show up an advetisement about pkg_install being deprecated. I would also like to just remove pkg_* tools from RELENG_10 if that fits the schedule. regards, Bapt pgprE0wBGH62B.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: pkgng 1.0 release schedule, and HEAD switch to pkgng by default schedule
Hi Baptise, On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 09:43:13PM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > Since 1.0-rc6 release, everything looks ready for a final release of 1.0, I'll > give more details on the release commit bit :) this is planned for 30th august > 2012. > > Current was supposed to switch to pkgng by default today, it has been delayed > until the nvidia-driver is fixed with pkgng. Thanksfully kwm@ and danfe@ has > been working on this, and the situation should be fixed pretty soon. > > Please continue testing pkgng and reporting bugs, if you are new comers do not > hesitate to ask question about pkgng so that we can improve documentation: > > The usual links about pkgng: > - http://wiki.freebsd.org/pkgng > - http://wiki.freebsd.org/PkgPrimer > - https://github.com/pkgng/pkgng/blob/master/FAQ.md > - http://people.freebsd.org/~bapt/pres-pkgng-bsdcan.pdf > - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Hxq7AHZ27I First thank you and all who have worked to make this first release of pkgng. This is a great milestone in FreeBSD history. Supposedly, pkgng will stay opt-in for RELENG_9 and will be the default (opt-out?) on RELENG_10. During the upgrade from the old branch to the new one, how do we ensure users will perform the required step (basically, run pkg2ng) to switch their pkg database to pkgng? Will it be a note in src/UPDATING and as well in the release notes? -- Jeremie Le Hen Scientists say the world is made up of Protons, Neutrons and Electrons. They forgot to mention Morons. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: pkgng 1.0 release schedule, and HEAD switch to pkgng by default schedule
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:37:26PM +0200, Olivier Smedts wrote: > 2012/8/21 Baptiste Daroussin : > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:09:46AM +0300, Vitaly Magerya wrote: > >> What would be the best practice of mixing ports with packages? > > > > There is no best practice for that unfortunatly, (as actually) the best for > > you > > is maybe to build your own pkgng repostories? > > http://wiki.freebsd.org/PkgPrimer#Using_poudriere for example? > > So, to make it really clear, one should *not* test, try or use pkgng > if he wants to continue using ports without setting up a repository ? > I did not find a big warning on the wiki. to be clear you can continue to use your system with pkgng the same way you used to use it before with pkg_install. regards, Bapt pgpy8en8NIUJ7.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: pkgng 1.0 release schedule, and HEAD switch to pkgng by default schedule
On 21 August 2012 11:37, Olivier Smedts wrote: > 2012/8/21 Baptiste Daroussin : >> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:09:46AM +0300, Vitaly Magerya wrote: >>> What would be the best practice of mixing ports with packages? >> >> There is no best practice for that unfortunatly, (as actually) the best for >> you >> is maybe to build your own pkgng repostories? >> http://wiki.freebsd.org/PkgPrimer#Using_poudriere for example? > > So, to make it really clear, one should *not* test, try or use pkgng > if he wants to continue using ports without setting up a repository ? > I did not find a big warning on the wiki. You can of course use pkgng with ports-- nothing has changed in that respect; putting WITH_PKGNG=yes into /etc/make.conf makes the ports tree work just fine. It has never been recommended to use packages and ports together. Chris ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: pkgng 1.0 release schedule, and HEAD switch to pkgng by default schedule
2012/8/21 Baptiste Daroussin : > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:09:46AM +0300, Vitaly Magerya wrote: >> What would be the best practice of mixing ports with packages? > > There is no best practice for that unfortunatly, (as actually) the best for > you > is maybe to build your own pkgng repostories? > http://wiki.freebsd.org/PkgPrimer#Using_poudriere for example? So, to make it really clear, one should *not* test, try or use pkgng if he wants to continue using ports without setting up a repository ? I did not find a big warning on the wiki. -- Olivier Smedts _ ASCII ribbon campaign ( ) e-mail: oliv...@gid0.org- against HTML email & vCards X www: http://www.gid0.org- against proprietary attachments / \ "Il y a seulement 10 sortes de gens dans le monde : ceux qui comprennent le binaire, et ceux qui ne le comprennent pas." ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: pkgng 1.0 release schedule, and HEAD switch to pkgng by default schedule
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 07:05:49AM +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote: > On 21/08/2012 00:21, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:09:46AM +0300, Vitaly Magerya wrote: > >> Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > >>> Please [...] ask question about pkgng [...] > >> > >> What would be the best practice of mixing ports with packages? > >> > >> The use case I have in mind is compiling Xorg ports locally > >> WITH_NEW_XORG and WITH_KMS, and using packages from > >> pkgbeta.freebsd.org for everything else. Is there some mixture of pkg > >> and portmaster flags that allows this kind of setup? > >> ___ > >> freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list > >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports > >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" > > > > There is no best practice for that unfortunatly, (as actually) the best for > > you > > is maybe to build your own pkgng repostories? > > http://wiki.freebsd.org/PkgPrimer#Using_poudriere for example? > > > > We are open to suggestion here :) > > At the moment, it is about as tricky as mixing locally compiled ports > with pkg_tools packages: ie. it might work, or it might leave you a > quivering, sobbing mess lost in a pit of dark despair. > > One thing that should help is a proposal to record metadata like the SVN > revision number of the ports tree used to build repository packages into > the repository catalogue (repo.sqlite), so users can in principle check > out the same revision locally to build their own ports. Unfortunately > no one has written that yet, and its probably too late for it to make it > into release-1.0. > yes but it should definitly find its way to 1.1! regards, Bapt pgppErHxBkzUn.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: pkgng 1.0 release schedule, and HEAD switch to pkgng by default schedule
On 21/08/2012 00:21, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:09:46AM +0300, Vitaly Magerya wrote: >> Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >>> Please [...] ask question about pkgng [...] >> >> What would be the best practice of mixing ports with packages? >> >> The use case I have in mind is compiling Xorg ports locally >> WITH_NEW_XORG and WITH_KMS, and using packages from >> pkgbeta.freebsd.org for everything else. Is there some mixture of pkg >> and portmaster flags that allows this kind of setup? >> ___ >> freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" > > There is no best practice for that unfortunatly, (as actually) the best for > you > is maybe to build your own pkgng repostories? > http://wiki.freebsd.org/PkgPrimer#Using_poudriere for example? > > We are open to suggestion here :) At the moment, it is about as tricky as mixing locally compiled ports with pkg_tools packages: ie. it might work, or it might leave you a quivering, sobbing mess lost in a pit of dark despair. One thing that should help is a proposal to record metadata like the SVN revision number of the ports tree used to build repository packages into the repository catalogue (repo.sqlite), so users can in principle check out the same revision locally to build their own ports. Unfortunately no one has written that yet, and its probably too late for it to make it into release-1.0. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: pkgng 1.0 release schedule, and HEAD switch to pkgng by default schedule
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:09:46AM +0300, Vitaly Magerya wrote: > Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > Please [...] ask question about pkgng [...] > > What would be the best practice of mixing ports with packages? > > The use case I have in mind is compiling Xorg ports locally > WITH_NEW_XORG and WITH_KMS, and using packages from > pkgbeta.freebsd.org for everything else. Is there some mixture of pkg > and portmaster flags that allows this kind of setup? > ___ > freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" There is no best practice for that unfortunatly, (as actually) the best for you is maybe to build your own pkgng repostories? http://wiki.freebsd.org/PkgPrimer#Using_poudriere for example? We are open to suggestion here :) regards, Bapt pgpx14W5LyN3x.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: pkgng 1.0 release schedule, and HEAD switch to pkgng by default schedule
Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > Please [...] ask question about pkgng [...] What would be the best practice of mixing ports with packages? The use case I have in mind is compiling Xorg ports locally WITH_NEW_XORG and WITH_KMS, and using packages from pkgbeta.freebsd.org for everything else. Is there some mixture of pkg and portmaster flags that allows this kind of setup? ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
