Re: Breaking up base (was: current state of the binup project)
The Anarcat <[email protected]> Fri, 25 Oct 2002 14:43:04 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.os.freebsd.devel.binary-update |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Fri Oct 25, 2002 at 11:32:30AM -0700, Philip Jenvey wrote: > On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 01:46:18PM -0400, The Anarcat wrote: > > On Sat Oct 19, 2002 at 10:54:17AM -0700, Murray Stokely wrote: > > [...] > > > the same mechanism. We were not interested in changing the package > > > format, because other groups (i.e. libh / openpackages) are more > > > focussed on that. We were focussed on updates, delivery, and breaking > > > up the base system into discrete components. > > > > Really? I've been dreaming about breaking up base for a long time > > now. Have binup started any work in this direction? > > > > I have a "paper" I started writing that I've been thinking to send to > > -arch for a while now, should it be sent here instead? > > > > A. > > > > Antoine, we'd love to hear your ideas, even if the "paper" is still in > a state that requires surrounding double quotes to describe it. I have changed my mind, sorry. After further discussion with some people, I have come to realize that it would be close to impossible to break up base without a new package system, and therefore, I'm not exposing a new scheme to see it demolished by FUD and armchair grannies that don't know what all this involves. No offense meant to anyone here in particular, of course. :) Seriously, breaking up base has several obvious advantages, but, as JKH pointed out in private mail, the current pkg_* tools aren't up to the task. They would just die an horrible death trying (for example) to install parts of bin into a small size disk, because they have to extract the package to a temporary location before installing. This is one in many things that forbid me from going forward with my paper. I'm sorry. A. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [email protected] with "unsubscribe freebsd-binup" in the body of the message