Re: New FreeBSD package system (a.k.a. Daemon Package System (dps))

In <200705111011.52212.fcash@xxxxxxxx>, Freddie Cash <fcash@xxxxxxxx> typed:
On Friday 11 May 2007 07:35 am, Mike Meyer wrote:
I still think we ought to quit pretending that ports/packages aren't
part of BSD, and default LOCALBASE to /usr. But if changing it is
being tested, that's a big help.
Personally, this is the one thing I like *most* about BSD. There is a
clear separation between what ships as part of the OS, and what apps I
install on it later. There's a consistency to things, that you just
can't find anywhere else.

/ and /usr are the OS.

/usr/local is what the ports tree installs.

Moving the OS into the package system has been on the "todo" list for
a long time (assuming it's still there - there are people opposed to
that). What happens to your distinction in that case? This is why I
think the distinction is an illusion.

One could make the case for /usr to be the OS, /usr/pkg (or whatever) for
port installs, and /usr/local for local source installs. So long as the
OS is separate from the apps.

I think that would be an improvement. There's a real distinction
between "things installed from ports/packages" and "things I built and
installed myself". The former I expect to reinstall from FreeBSD
media; the latter I can't. Since most packages in the latter install
in /usr/local, using that for the former makes life a bit more painful
if you want to keep them separate. The downside is that making the
default something else makes things a bit harder for people doing
ports, which we promptly throw away by providing a settable LOCALBASE.


With the OS and apps separate, you can upgrade them asynchronously.
There's a nice feeling to running the latest version of appX on FreeBSD
5.3. Or an older version of appY on FreeBSD 6-STABLE.

How would setting LOCALBASE=/usr break this? Of course, equally valid
is the question "what will break if I set LOCALBASE=/usr"? Hmm. I
think I may found out....

Personally, what I like about FreeBSD is that it provides flexibility
for things like this. If I'd rather have ports out of /usr/local, it's
not really hard to do. Not as easy as doing things the default way,
but not any worse than anyone else who wants to build from
source. Other systems seem intent on making me do things their way, no
matter what I may think of it, and trying to change something like
this is a major change.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mwm@xxxxxxxxx> http://www.mired.org/consulting.html
Independent Network/Unix/Perforce consultant, email for more information.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Whats so compelling about FreeBSD?
    ... can outdo Linux. ... Then I changed jobs and needed to be a FreeBSD guy. ... package installs. ... tweaking the ports fast enough for me. ...
    (freebsd-questions)
  • Re: discrepancy between WV2 and LIBGSF Header files?
    ... I am running on FreeBSD 6.1-RELEASE-p10, and my ports and source trees ... I have libgsf-1.14.1 installed and it installs gsf.h at: ...
    (freebsd-hackers)
  • Re: recovering from the 6.3 xorg mess
    ... I do clean installs not upgrades. ... I have tried the other suggestions on configuring X in the FreeBSD ... 640x480 and it has no modelines in the .conf. ... I tried reinstalling xorg from ports by running make ...
    (freebsd-stable)
  • Re: Migrating from RedHat to Debian
    ... by the script that installs the rpms (remember that you usually don't ... install the intel compiler rpms directly). ... learning curve is steeper than Debian, but the BSD way of doing things ... FreeBSD box by trying to mount a floppy disk. ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)
  • ports system woes
    ... What exactly "removing dependency on package" means? ... port installs?). ... Allow it 3-5 hours per 1000 installed ports 8-) The good thing is that ...
    (freebsd-hackers)