Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] IPS idiom for local packages with no dependencies
Yeah IPS is a complete re engineering from existing Package managers. On the Architecture side it has a lot of features that other Package Formats only added as an after thought. As to your confusion with perl. That is quite an ugly Hack to have both a 32bit and a 64bit version of perl available. Greetings Till On 12.02.19 01:44, Tim Mooney wrote: > In regard to: Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] IPS idiom for local packages > with...: > >> On 02/11/19 04:19 PM, Tim Mooney wrote: >>> However, most packages that I would have guessed would be "leaves" are >>> actually required by userland-incorporation or some other incorporation, >>> so they are effectively "required". >> >> depend type=incorporate does not mark a package required, it just sets a >> constraint on what version can be installed. When you're looking at >> what >> packages are actually required, you need to look carefully at the type >> of the depend action, and see what each type actually does in the list >> in the pkg(5) man page. > > Thanks for the clarification, Alan. It's appreciated. > > I think my experience with other package managers, especially RPM, has > actually been a bit of a detriment to learning IPS. Even after using OI > for several years now, I'm still finding surprises with IPS. > > Tim ___ openindiana-discuss mailing list openindiana-discuss@openindiana.org https://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] IPS idiom for local packages with no dependencies
In regard to: Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] IPS idiom for local packages with...: On 02/11/19 04:19 PM, Tim Mooney wrote: However, most packages that I would have guessed would be "leaves" are actually required by userland-incorporation or some other incorporation, so they are effectively "required". depend type=incorporate does not mark a package required, it just sets a constraint on what version can be installed. When you're looking at what packages are actually required, you need to look carefully at the type of the depend action, and see what each type actually does in the list in the pkg(5) man page. Thanks for the clarification, Alan. It's appreciated. I think my experience with other package managers, especially RPM, has actually been a bit of a detriment to learning IPS. Even after using OI for several years now, I'm still finding surprises with IPS. Tim -- Tim Mooney tim.moo...@ndsu.edu Enterprise Computing & Infrastructure 701-231-1076 (Voice) Room 242-J6, Quentin Burdick Building 701-231-8541 (Fax) North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105-5164 ___ openindiana-discuss mailing list openindiana-discuss@openindiana.org https://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] IPS idiom for local packages with no dependencies
On 02/11/19 04:19 PM, Tim Mooney wrote: However, most packages that I would have guessed would be "leaves" are actually required by userland-incorporation or some other incorporation, so they are effectively "required". depend type=incorporate does not mark a package required, it just sets a constraint on what version can be installed. When you're looking at what packages are actually required, you need to look carefully at the type of the depend action, and see what each type actually does in the list in the pkg(5) man page. -alan- ___ openindiana-discuss mailing list openindiana-discuss@openindiana.org https://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] IPS idiom for local packages with no dependencies
In regard to: Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] IPS idiom for local packages with...: Hi Tim Thanks for the response, Till. IPS implements package deprecation differently than any other known Packaging system. Packages get deprecated centrally by the Openindiana Developers. There are never locally installed Packages that are not in the Upstream Repository unless you are using beta software from other publishers like userland. Our Development Publisher/Branch. In which case you can do "pkg list | grep userland" to find all package What you are talking about is when our base requirements change but the old Package is still viable for certain use cases. But maybe not yours and you want to get rid of it. This you will have to do manually Yeah, that's the main use case I had in mind. I had expected there to be more "left-over" packages than there actually are. What I imagine your search will find are any packages that are not dependant on other packages. I was actually looking for the opposite: packages that are not required by any other package. In a dependency tree, these would be the "leaves". However, most packages that I would have guessed would be "leaves" are actually required by userland-incorporation or some other incorporation, so they are effectively "required". I know that it's possible to remove the dependency, for example if I want to test an alternate or updated version of a package I've built locally, but that's outside of the scope of what I was trying to do here. And Lastly you will probably not find consolidations which will prevent you from removing quite a few packages anyway. Consolidations do indeed prevent removal of lots of packages that would otherwise be "leaves" on the dependency tree. That's fine for me, since I'm not trying to minimize the OS size, just clean up anything that may have been "required" at one time but is still installed but no longer required. The best way to get rid of unwanted software is IMHO to look at pkg list manually and remove any you don't want. But unless you are changing a desktop system to a Server system or removing all Development Packages required for userland Packaging your gain in Space will be a few hundred Megabytes at most. We do not have that many packages after all. What got me started looking at this was the fact that even after the latest pkg update, I had developer/gcc-49 installed, even though I know that a later version is now the default for userland package builds. As you said, developer/gcc-49 is still viable, it's just not the default any more. I thought maybe there would be a bunch of other packages like that. When I started looking at the output of 'pkg list', I noticed that I had two different versions of perl installed, plus a bunch of modules for each. I initially assumed that was because some pkg update had switched the default to be runtime/perl-524 , and that I could manually clean up all the older 522 stuff. It turns out that's not correct. Right now, OI requires that both are installed. As you've indicated, there's just not much cleanup of "obsolete" versions to do. Thanks, Tim On 06.02.19 22:43, Tim Mooney wrote: All- Anyone know a good way to find all locally-installed packages that aren't listed as a dependency for any other locally installed packages? I can iterate through the contents of 'pkg list' and run 'pkg search -l -o pkg.name depend::', but is there a better way? As I've applied updates to hipster over the years and the defaults change from something like developer-gcc49 to developer/gcc-6, it's sometimes the case that some old packages are kept, when I don't really need them any longer. Short of doing a fresh re-install, I'm just looking to do some cleanup of packages that have been replaced with a newer version that might be under a different name. Thanks, Tim ___ openindiana-discuss mailing list openindiana-discuss@openindiana.org https://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss -- Tim Mooney tim.moo...@ndsu.edu Enterprise Computing & Infrastructure 701-231-1076 (Voice) Room 242-J6, Quentin Burdick Building 701-231-8541 (Fax) North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105-5164 ___ openindiana-discuss mailing list openindiana-discuss@openindiana.org https://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] IPS idiom for local packages with no dependencies
Hi Tim IPS implements package deprecation differently than any other known Packaging system. Packages get deprecated centrally by the Openindiana Developers. There are never locally installed Packages that are not in the Upstream Repository unless you are using beta software from other publishers like userland. Our Development Publisher/Branch. In which case you can do "pkg list | grep userland" to find all package What you are talking about is when our base requirements change but the old Package is still viable for certain use cases. But maybe not yours and you want to get rid of it. This you will have to do manually We may at some point also obsolete gcc-49 but not now. If we do so IPS will automatically clean your system from any obsoleted packages. What I imagine your search will find are any packages that are not dependant on other packages. Which I am assuming are quite a lot. gnu find coming to my mind. And I doubt you want to remove them all. Sou you would need to filter further. Also you will not find any that have no dependency after the first run. And Lastly you will probably not find consolidations which will prevent you from removing quite a few packages anyway. The best way to get rid of unwanted software is IMHO to look at pkg list manually and remove any you don't want. But unless you are changing a desktop system to a Server system or removing all Development Packages required for userland Packaging your gain in Space will be a few hundred Megabytes at most. We do not have that many packages after all. Hope this helps Greetings Till On 06.02.19 22:43, Tim Mooney wrote: > > All- > > Anyone know a good way to find all locally-installed packages that aren't > listed as a dependency for any other locally installed packages? I > can iterate through the contents of 'pkg list' and run 'pkg search -l -o > pkg.name depend::', but is there a better way? > > As I've applied updates to hipster over the years and the defaults change > from something like developer-gcc49 to developer/gcc-6, it's sometimes > the case that some old packages are kept, when I don't really need them > any longer. > > Short of doing a fresh re-install, I'm just looking to do some cleanup > of packages that have been replaced with a newer version that might be > under a different name. > > Thanks, > > Tim ___ openindiana-discuss mailing list openindiana-discuss@openindiana.org https://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
[OpenIndiana-discuss] IPS idiom for local packages with no dependencies
All- Anyone know a good way to find all locally-installed packages that aren't listed as a dependency for any other locally installed packages? I can iterate through the contents of 'pkg list' and run 'pkg search -l -o pkg.name depend::', but is there a better way? As I've applied updates to hipster over the years and the defaults change from something like developer-gcc49 to developer/gcc-6, it's sometimes the case that some old packages are kept, when I don't really need them any longer. Short of doing a fresh re-install, I'm just looking to do some cleanup of packages that have been replaced with a newer version that might be under a different name. Thanks, Tim -- Tim Mooney tim.moo...@ndsu.edu Enterprise Computing & Infrastructure 701-231-1076 (Voice) Room 242-J6, Quentin Burdick Building 701-231-8541 (Fax) North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105-5164 ___ openindiana-discuss mailing list openindiana-discuss@openindiana.org https://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
