Subject: Re: packagized base-system (was: Re: OpenSSH installation from
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Marton Fabo <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/02/2002 00:08:19
> > Could someone explain why it would emerge such a big problem? Having the
> > default stuff (sendmail, postfix, openssh etc) installed in their current
> > place, but as packages, or maybe having them in a specific default-packages
> > location, with LOCALBASE set to that, and having them initially recorded in
> > the package database shouldn't be that hard.
>Difference in formalism. pkgsrc is all about making someone else's source
>work with our OS (NetBSD or Solaris/Darwin/Linux for zoularis & friends).
>i.e. we work with their make infrastructure. And we do things like build
>in work.XXX/distname & such. For the base OS, we have our own make
>infrastructure, and we have all the source. They just are two different
>ways of doing things.
Well, then let me quote part of a message I originally sent only to Martin
Weber, but which is the continuation of this same topic:
>> > How is it now?
>>One big tarball contains a whole set of flavours, i.e. base.tgz,
>>comp.tgz, man.tgz, etc.tgz etc. etc... This means exactly that the
>>dependancies are packaged in one .tgz. But those are huge. Now, for
>>example, if you have a package for base-libc.so.tgz (just as example),
>>each syspkg had to depend on it. Now they know that if they are
>>installed, the libc is installed, too, because they're in the same
>I mean, if you would install those stuffs in the form of packages, finally
>you would have the same set of installed binaries. Just the whole thing is
>now precompiled for you, in the form of some huge tarballs. Why is this
>precompilation necessary? Providing them in the form of a separate tarball
>for each component, with the usual package dependencies maintained, you
>could install them with the same (if not more) ease.
>> > I'm sure all the dependencies of sendmail are installed by
>> > default (or else it wouldn't work), but not in the form of a package.
>> So you
>> > wouldn't introduce new complexity,
>>No ? five hundred packages each depending EXPLICITELY on libc is not adding
>>complexity ? Or, to be exact, five hundred packages with an average
>>list of ~ 20 packages is not adding complexity as compared to untarring one
>>or several tarballs ?
>I didn't say the whole system (starting from the boot code) should be
>packagized. For example, libc should be part of the system below the
>package level, so that any package can suppose its presence without
>explicit dependency. Similarily, the base package management tools, along
>with a reasonable set of other files should be included in this
>really-base system. Instead, I'm talking about the higher-level stuff
>which are currently also part of the tarballs: sendmail, postfix, openssh
>and all the stuff like that. Those should still remain in the _default_
>installation, but in the form of removable/upgradeable packages. Do you
>see my point now?
>>It's not a PROBLEM which stalls it, but a _huge_ EFFORT.
>Ofcoz, as everything, this would cost effort. But without effort, you
>can't have your system going. And without effort, on should just be silent
>and not say "hey, I have a good system". Let's sit down and make this damn
>thing better if there is way to it!
>>Hope you got the point now.