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

On Friday 11 May 2007 11:34 am, Mike Meyer wrote:
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.

Hmmm, I might be misremembering things, but I always thought the plan was
to break out some bits of the base OS into ports/packages (like
sendmail/bind/etc) but have them installed-by-default. Either way, you
are correct that the distinction between "base OS" and "installed apps"
would blur or even disappear.

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....

I was thinking more along the lines of how Linux distros operate, where
all apps are installed under /usr, and where the only way to get the
latest version of an app was to upgrade the entire OS and switch package
repositories to the ones for that new version of the OS. Something that
irks me to no end when using Linux systems. Not quite the same as what
you were getting at, I see, so we can just ignore this entire little bit
of the thread. :)

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.

Yes, flexibility and customisability is very nice, and definitely one of
FreeBSD's strength.
--
Freddie Cash
fcash@xxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
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

  • 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)
  • Re: Newbie nervous about OCXes and reliability.
    ... What about the myriad files involved with MDAC? ... Only if the package is authored by that 10 year old Most people know ... VBRun60sp6.exe installs Visual Basic 6.0 SP6 run-time files ... writing apps for Windows, at the minimum, you should know a little something ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion)
  • Re: A8N-SLI LAN1 not working.(solved)
    ... >The reason I have always advocate reinstalling windows ... >there are versioning problems with these installs. ... >reinstalling apps, but that's not necessarily a good thing. ... reformat/reinstall vs repair install -- there's going to be no ...
    (alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus)
  • RE: Office 2003 Apps on TS
    ... installs and the SPs. ... 90-100 users on each server, using multiple apps all day, and only get 20 ... Along with Office apps, IE and Explorer ... >> Event Viewer are about as useful as my pinky toes. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.terminal_services)
  • Re: Why are apps reinstalled?
    ... Even though another user logged onto that laptop and the software got ... another user's profile unless they log on ... installed under another user's profile so the application installs into ... The apps are installed after logging in. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.active_directory)