pkgng 1.0 release schedule, and HEAD switch to pkgng by default schedule
Locked
12
12
 
|
Hi all,
Since 1.0-rc6 release, everything looks ready for a final release of 1.0, I'll give more details on the release commit bit :) this is planned for 30th august 2012. Current was supposed to switch to pkgng by default today, it has been delayed until the nvidia-driver is fixed with pkgng. Thanksfully kwm@ and danfe@ has been working on this, and the situation should be fixed pretty soon. Please continue testing pkgng and reporting bugs, if you are new comers do not hesitate to ask question about pkgng so that we can improve documentation: The usual links about pkgng: - http://wiki.freebsd.org/pkgng - http://wiki.freebsd.org/PkgPrimer - https://github.com/pkgng/pkgng/blob/master/FAQ.md - http://people.freebsd.org/~bapt/pres-pkgng-bsdcan.pdf - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Hxq7AHZ27I regards, Bapt |
attachment0 (203 bytes)
|
On 20/08/2012 21:43, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> Hi all, > > Since 1.0-rc6 release, everything looks ready for a final release of 1.0, I'll > give more details on the release commit bit :) this is planned for 30th august > 2012. Congratulations, it's great! :) |
|
|
|
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 03:26:43PM +0200, Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
> Hi Baptise, > > On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 09:43:13PM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > > > Since 1.0-rc6 release, everything looks ready for a final release of 1.0, I'll > > give more details on the release commit bit :) this is planned for 30th august > > 2012. > > > > Current was supposed to switch to pkgng by default today, it has been delayed > > until the nvidia-driver is fixed with pkgng. Thanksfully kwm@ and danfe@ has > > been working on this, and the situation should be fixed pretty soon. > > > > Please continue testing pkgng and reporting bugs, if you are new comers do not > > hesitate to ask question about pkgng so that we can improve documentation: > > > > The usual links about pkgng: > > - http://wiki.freebsd.org/pkgng > > - http://wiki.freebsd.org/PkgPrimer > > - https://github.com/pkgng/pkgng/blob/master/FAQ.md > > - http://people.freebsd.org/~bapt/pres-pkgng-bsdcan.pdf > > - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Hxq7AHZ27I > > First thank you and all who have worked to make this first release of > pkgng. This is a great milestone in FreeBSD history. > > Supposedly, pkgng will stay opt-in for RELENG_9 and will be the default > (opt-out?) on RELENG_10. During the upgrade from the old branch to the > new one, how do we ensure users will perform the required step > (basically, run pkg2ng) to switch their pkg database to pkgng? Will it > be a note in src/UPDATING and as well in the release notes? > to that they show up an advetisement about pkg_install being deprecated. I would also like to just remove pkg_* tools from RELENG_10 if that fits the schedule. regards, Bapt |
|
|
|
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:17:36AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 8/21/2012 6:46 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > I would also like to just remove pkg_* tools from RELENG_10 if that fits the > > schedule. > > Um, no? > > Until pkg becomes mandatory (which can't happen for several years) the > pkg_* tools can't be removed altogether. > > What _would_ be useful is what should have been done many years ago when > it was first suggested: Move the pkg_* tools to ports. > > It's too late for 9.1 already, but if you made that change today in > HEAD, and after 9.1 (but before 8.4) you MFC it to stable/[89], then you > could theoretically make pkg mandatory after 9.1 EOLs. > > To make my point more clear, the ports tree has to support the last > release to ship with pkg_* tools in the base throughout its lifetime. To > do anything else would be be a massive POLA violation. > > Doug > > -- > > I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do > something. And I will not let what I cannot do interfere with what > I can do. > -- Edward Everett Hale, (1822 - 1909) Bapt |
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Garrett Cooper
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:47:36AM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Doug Barton <[hidden email]> wrote: > > On 8/21/2012 6:46 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > >> I would also like to just remove pkg_* tools from RELENG_10 if that fits the > >> schedule. > > > > Um, no? > > ... > > > What _would_ be useful is what should have been done many years ago when > > it was first suggested: Move the pkg_* tools to ports. > > It already exists -- it's just out of date / crufty: > > $ make describe > pkg_install-20090902|/usr/ports/ports-mgmt/pkg_install|/usr/local|FreeBSD > -STABLE version of the package > tools|/usr/ports/ports-mgmt/pkg_install/pkg-descr|[hidden email]|ports-mgmt||||||http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/usr.sbin/pkg_install/ > > > It's too late for 9.1 already, but if you made that change today in > > HEAD, and after 9.1 (but before 8.4) you MFC it to stable/[89], then you > > could theoretically make pkg mandatory after 9.1 EOLs. > > > > To make my point more clear, the ports tree has to support the last > > release to ship with pkg_* tools in the base throughout its lifetime. To > > do anything else would be be a massive POLA violation. > > Agreed. > Thanks, > -Garrett 1/ if it fits the schedule: get rid of pkg_* tools in current to be able to have a fully pkgng only 10-RELEASE 2/ switch 9.2 (the ports tree) to pkgng (but keep pkg_* tools maybe drop them, but that is to be discussed to avoid POLA 3/ do the same for 8 once all of our supported release are fully pkgng aware and all the pkg_* release are EOLed, drop support for pkg_* tools from the ports tree. regards, Bapt |
|
|
|
|
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:38:04PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 8/21/2012 12:05 PM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > 1/ if it fits the schedule: get rid of pkg_* tools in current to be > > able to have a fully pkgng only 10-RELEASE > > I think it would fit better with historic precedents to make pkg > optional (but default on) in 10, and mandatory in 11. As stated > before, I'm fine with removing pkg_* tools from 10 if there is robust > support for them in the ports tree. > > I know you're excited about this project, but let's not lose sight of > how big a change this is, and how important ports are to the project. > regards, Bapt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to this post by dougb
On 21/08/2012 22:15, Doug Barton wrote:
> And in this case, it doesn't matter how awesome the new tools are, they > are a MAJOR paradigm shift for how users interact with ports, and we are Unless I've missed something, pkgng is actually *zero* paradigm shift for users familiar with *ports*, and here's why: people using ports can and will continue to use ports the way they are used to. AFAIK, the infrastructure which registers port installation is already there and there are also patches for portupgrade and portmaster which make them interact nicely with the new package database. The only important aspect of this is that the actual package database format changed (IMO, immensely for the better) and there are several other port management utilities which may need to be changed. People who got used to manually altering the old text-based package database will learn either not to do it anymore, since whole classes of errors have now become impossible to have, or learn how to do it with the new format. Can you explain what you mean as the "paradigm shift" for ports users here? OTOH, people using *binary packages* (the very few and miserable users that they are since the old binary package infrastructure has sucked for the last decade or so), will get their world turned upside down, but for the better, and hopefully grow in numbers. |
|
|
Loading...
| Powered by Nabble | Edit this page |