Isn't time to build a serious graphical package manager for FreeBSD?

Status
Not open for further replies.
piggy said:
I read all the posts.

Good god, FreeBSD is NOT a religion. Guys, there is life outside there, and this is the reason becouse FreeBSD should implement an official build system and a Package Manager into FreeBSD. So you have more time for real life and you go out, and you enjoy something more than a computer with a shell running "religious" FreeBSD intifada shell scripts.
Click to expand...

Seeing your passive aggressive troll; Speeching of religion; got me curious. Were you a lamer disinterested in UNIX during 1994 as well?
 
piggy said:
Yes, and this is a contraddiction in terms considering you only can upgrade programs to latest revision building them. This is the reason becouse it need:

1) an OFFICIAL, base and officially maintained graphical tool to manage packages
Click to expand...
As has been noted before, this is not possible as FreeBSD doesn't have a GUI.

2) an OFFICIAL and officially maintained tool to build packages (something between Portmaster and Portupgrade)
Click to expand...
The OFFICIAL way is to use make package or make package-recursive, see ports(7)

3) an updated and maintained binary server for binary upgrades using the Official Graphical Tool in point 1.
Click to expand...
FreeBSD doesn't have a GUI, we therefor cannot have a GUI package manager.
 
piggy said:
Yes, and this is a contraddiction in terms considering you only can upgrade programs to latest revision building them. This is the reason becouse it need:
Click to expand...
Actually you just need to change the make-file, and then you can build from source to the version you want.

1) an OFFICIAL, base and officially maintained graphical tool to manage packages
Click to expand...
Why should it be graphical? If you desparately want it, build it yourself. Interface the proper hooks, which I am sure there are, and get it done. Having a graphical interface requires running a bunch of stuff in parallel. A large number of the people using FreeBSD have multiple servers, these are much easier to handle with a text-based interface as they can be scripted. Scripting something for 10 server is faster and easier than clicking 10*10 times. Scaling can be a big issue.
So you have now introduced a second port/package/third-party-software management interface into the base system. For what reason? So that people can point-and-click?

2) an OFFICIAL and officially maintained tool to build packages (something between Portmaster and Portupgrade)
Click to expand...
The ports system already works. Just go to your chosen port, and then issue the proper make-command. Easy as piece of pie.

3) an updated and maintained binary server for binary upgrades using the Official Graphical Tool in point 1.
Click to expand...
Who will run it, who will pay for it, who will pay for maintenance. Who will build the packages? These things all cost money. Are you willing to pay for it?

No need for more. It obviously should retain the ability to compile and use third party source and to allow people to use what he want for compile, but OFFICIAL tools are there for compatibility and wide spread use.
Click to expand...
That is why it would be a BAD idea to introduce more tools. Especially something like a graphical tool. IF the graphical tool is the official default, and I don't want a graphical interface, how do I now upgrade my software? You are forcing your choice on me. As it is now you can choose to introduce a graphical front-end to the available port-tools. Then you can point-and-click all day long. BUT it is quite difficult to have a text-based front-end for a graphical tool, requires scripting mouse-clicks etc etc. Which of these do you think gives the most compatability for a LARGE number of users with very varied choices?


It will be a real better OS and the effort will pay even in the short time in terms of usuability and user base.
Click to expand...
No. It will not be a better OS. It might, for some people, be easier to use. But definately not for everybody.
 
SirDice said:
As has been noted before, this is not possible as FreeBSD doesn't have a GUI.


The OFFICIAL way is to use make package or make package-recursive, see ports(7)


FreeBSD doesn't have a GUI, we therefor cannot have a GUI package manager.
Click to expand...
Yes, I know, and this is the reason becouse I ask for one. Do you think things can be improved and change? And this changes I do propose can make FreeBSD a better OS, as explained in my other messages.
 
UNIXgod said:
Seeing your passive aggressive troll; Speeching of religion; got me curious. Were you a lamer disinterested in UNIX during 1994 as well?
Click to expand...
Thank you. This is exactly the reaction I would expect from a guy like you (see nick). And I'm happy about it.
 
piggy said:
Yes, I know, and this is the reason becouse I ask for one. Do you think things can be improved and change? And this changes I do propose can make FreeBSD a better OS, as explained in my other messages.
Click to expand...

It's simply not possible.

I think the biggest misconception you seem to have is to consider ports/packages part of the OS. They aren't. ANYTHING you want to add to the base OS will need to be able to run WITHOUT any ports or packages installed.

How are you going to create a GUI if even the most basic Xorg libraries are not available?
 
SirDice said:
It's simply not possible.

I think the biggest misconception you seem to have is to consider ports/packages part of the OS. They aren't. ANYTHING you want to add to the base OS will need to be able to run WITHOUT any ports or packages installed.

How are you going to create a GUI if even the most basic Xorg libraries are not available?
Click to expand...
No, I want this change. You seems like those solid rocks unable to be moved in some other places. Things can change, it is not that complicated. I want build system and package management part of the OS, or something. And it can happen, ohh yes, it definitely can. And it will improve things so much, as I stated. I wont be like you and repeat things I always said, so it's enough.

PS: I'm not talking and discuss about install, install can be ok like it is. It can be improved, yes, then it can stay like it is. It still always have the option to install the gui. I just speak of updates, upgrades and package management. That's all.
 
I want build system and package management part of the OS
Click to expand...
After install FreeBSD run:
Code: 
portsnap fetch extract
And you get ports on base!
But even this is separated thing!
FreeNAS is exactly this. FreeBSD server 0S without GUI, use WEBUI and have no ports in base. Just is not needed to be part of the system! FreeBSD created for things like FreeNAS or pfsense. Not for desktop use. Even we use it as desktop because we love FreeBSD.
Also out there, there are millions OS that follow the desktop use philosophy. This OS make the difference. Go to other direction! Why change that? Because will not be easy for everyone? FreeBSD is not designed to be the easy GUI desktop OS! Is designed with stability and security in mind. To be pure server 0S. PCBSD have the FreeBSD destop usage in mind and have GUI in most of things. FreeBSD exist just to serve and do his job very good! This thread could be good some years before on PCBSD forums.
 
piggy said:
I want build system and package management part of the OS, or something. And it can happen, ohh yes, it definitely can. And it will improve things so much, as I stated. I wont be like you and repeat things I always said, so it's enough.
Click to expand...

As others has noted several ways in this thread, you cannot have a GUI package manager until you commit to a GUI (and its framework, libraries, etc.). That is why Ubuntu has a graphical package manager for Gnome, one for KDE and, most notably, one that can be run from the command line (e.g., in the server install).
And besides, it seems to me that it will be much more interesting to see if a common package format can be available between all the *BSD (or the majority of them). PCBSD has a great package format (PBI), that reminds me the one used in Mac OSX, but that is not committed to other BSDs; midnightBSD has another tool that reminds apt-get, and the list can continue.
Now instead of insisting in getting FreeBSD doing what you want, why don't you choose another BSD system that has a package manager as you like?
 
I think that Mr. Piggy has asked the wrong question. The question should be:

Isn't it time for a serious package process management for FreeBSD?

Let's try to clear some things first because although Mr. Piggy follows FreeBSD since 1994, he seems to have missed the part regarding package installation. So, it is obvious that one can use packages instead of ports and stay up to date. Hence my link suggestion in my first reply.

Now, for the real juice. There are currently 23043 ports available. Many of them can be build using different options which would require different dependencies etc.

So, the real question that has to be answered is, do we have the power to build all those package flavors on a daily basis and the bandwidth to distribute them? Is this something that the FreeBSD Foundation should really invest?

As we can see, the issue here in not application related. As soon as the decision is made then a relevant package management application will be made. Integrating nice windows and making this graphical would be the easiest part so that Mr. Piggy would be happy.
 
piggy said:
No, I want this change. You seems like those solid rocks unable to be moved in some other places. Things can change, it is not that complicated. I want build system and package management part of the OS, or something. And it can happen, ohh yes, it definitely can. And it will improve things so much, as I stated. I wont be like you and repeat things I always said, so it's enough.
Click to expand...

Here's what you do, install FreeBSD. Any version will do. Do NOT install any packages or ports. This is the system where any package manager, graphical or otherwise, needs to operate in.
 
SirDice said:
Here's what you do, install FreeBSD. Any version will do. Do NOT install any packages or ports. This is the system where any package manager, graphical or otherwise, needs to operate in.
Click to expand...
Yes, and I want OFFICIAL graphical package manager and OFFICIAL constantly updated binary server for updates/upgrades.
 
piggy said:
Yes, and I want OFFICIAL graphical package manager and OFFICIAL constantly updated binary server for updates/upgrades.
Click to expand...

Yes, and I want a million dollars. Sometimes we can't always get what we want.
 
SirDice said:
Yes, and I want a million dollars. Sometimes we can't always get what we want.
Click to expand...
We'll see. If you are right, FreeBSD will remain the four cat or so OS, and it is too bad becouse it do have a great engine. Not sure if what they (FreeBSD Foundation) want is to be the God of mr UnixGOD or mr "10 minute man" Dice :)
 
Don't hold your breath in the mean time.

Seriously, if I were you I'd stop talking about it and start writing some code. Come up with some suggestions on how to implement it. Suggest a framework, suggest something.
 
SirDice said:
Don't hold your breath in the mean time.

Seriously, if I were you I'd stop talking about it and start writing some code. Come up with some suggestions on how to implement it. Suggest a framework, suggest something.
Click to expand...
I'm not part of the FreeBSD Foundation. I can just suggest, no need for another third party crap. Becouse, seriously, that is what most of the third party BSD tools are.
 
piggy said:
I'm not part of the FreeBSD Foundation.
Click to expand...
This has never stopped anyone from contributing.

I can just suggest, no need for another third party crap.
Click to expand...
Who do you think actually writes the code? Do you think it's some sort of company that has a few dozen programmers doing nothing but code for FreeBSD all day?

The foundation only oversees the general structure and approves additions or modifications. It's users like you who do the actually coding.
 
SirDice said:
This has never stopped anyone from contributing.


Who do you think actually writes the code? Do you think it's some sort of company that has a few dozen programmers doing nothing but code for FreeBSD all day?
Click to expand...
No, and this is the reason becouse under a suberb coded OS there are half of the tools that are poor crap. Starting from the not so brilliant actual port management tools, especially the graphical ones. And BTW Portmaster and Portupgrade are not that great too. Archlinux Pacman is definitely better code, IMHO. It even have, starting from version 4, something that in a fragment package management like the ports in FreeBSD could be really important: PGP author and code verification.
 
piggy said:
No, and this is the reason becouse under a suberb coded OS there are half of the tools that are poor crap.
Click to expand...

Submit patches or improvements. Even you can do that. No need to be part of the foundation.

Here are a few other projects you could sink your teeth in: http://wiki.freebsd.org/IdeasPage
 
SirDice said:
Submit patches or improvements. Even you can do that. No need to be part of the foundation.

Here are a few other projects you could sink your teeth in: http://wiki.freebsd.org/IdeasPage
Click to expand...
I don't want submit nothing for now. I just want they think about improving them OS like me and a lot of users ask for: better ports management, if possible a revision of the very old ports structure, with an official building tool replacing the third party Portmaster and Portupgrade often not efficient and a graphical binary package manager with a constantly updated binary server.

It is of no use you still point me to other resources: you are OT, it is not the original subject of my post.
 
You can post your suggestions to the @freebsd-ports mailing list.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top