With CFT version you chose to build, and package individual components such as
sendmail with a port option. That does entirely solve the problem of being able
to reinstall sendmail after the fact without a rebuild of the userland (base)
port but perhaps base flavors could solve that problem assuming flavors could
extend beyond python.
Joe Maloney
Quality Engineering Manager / iXsystems
Enterprise Storage & Servers Driven By Open Source
> On Apr 29, 2019, at 3:31 PM, Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert at
cschubert.com> wrote:
>
> In message <201904291441.x3TEfMid072751 at gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>,
"Rodney W.
> Grimes"
> writes:
>>> On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 10:09 AM Rodney W. Grimes <
>>> freebsd-rwg at gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Correct, this is ZFS only. And it's something we're
using specific to
>>>> FreeNAS / TrueOS, which is why I didn't originally mention
it as apart of
>>>> our CFT.
>>>>
>>>> Then please it is "CFT: FreeNAS/TrueOS pkg base, ZFS
only",
>>>> calling this FreeBSD pkg base when it is not was wrong,
>>>> and miss leading.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry, I disagree.
>> Which is fine.
>>
>>> This pkg base is independent of the ZFS tool we're using
>>> to wrangle boot-environments. Hence why it wasn't mentioned in
the CFT.
>>> These base packages work the same as existing in-tree pkg base on
UFS, no
>>> difference. If anything are probably safer due to being able to
update all
>>> of userland in single extract operation, so you don't have out
of order
>>> extraction of libc or some such.
>>
>> You missed the major string change and focused on the edge,
>> No comment on calling iXsystems :stuff: FreeBSD instead of
FreeNAS/TrueOS?
>>
>> That was the major point of my statement, your miss leading the user
>> community, you yourself said this would never be imported into FreeBSD
>> base, so I see no reason that it should be called "FreeBSD package
Base",
>> as it is not, that is a different project.
>
> Taking the last comment on this thread to ask a question and maybe
> refocus a little.
>
> The discussion about granularity begs the question, why pkgbase in the
> first place? My impression was that it allowed people to select which
> components they wanted to either create a lean installation or mix and
> match base packages and ports (possibly with flavours to install in
> /usr rather than $LOCALBASE) such that maybe person A wanted a stock
> install while person B wanted to replace, picking a random example, BSD
> tar with GNU tar. Isn't that the real advantage of pkgbase?
>
> If OTOH it's binary updates V 2.0, what's the point? I'm a
little
> rhetorical here but you get my point. If I want ipfw instead pf or
> ipfilter instead of the others I should have the freedom. Similarly if
> I want vim instead of vi I should have the choice to install vim as
> /usr/bin/vi. Otherwise all the effort to replace binary updates makes
> no sense.
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert at cschubert.com>
> FreeBSD UNIX: <cy at FreeBSD.org> Web: http://www.FreeBSD.org
>
> The need of the many outweighs the greed of the few.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-current at freebsd.org mailing list
> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe at
freebsd.org"