Solved pkgbase upgrade freebsd 15.0 to freebsd15.1 was so complex. why ?

[Emrion]

Now I need to change, because freebsd-update also ends with version 15.

No, and that's for sure. I think that updates/upgrades without pkgbase will remain in 16 era, at least.
FreeBSD is somewhat conservative and prudent in its advances. That's not Linux.

That doesn't mean you don't have to prepare to the jump.

 

[mer]

Pkg upgrade without arguments updates everything sure, but -r exists, so you can skip base if you wish, just wrap/alias pkg for convenience.

I understand that BUT the current behavior of pkg is "upgrade only third party things". So I' suggesting that by default if you do "pkg upgrade -y" it should NOT look at pkgbase repos. That preserves exsiting behavior, adhering to POLA (Principle Of Least Astonishment) and frankly gets rid of arguments about updating OS and third party at the same time (Linux Model) Then another tool (freebsd-update) that understands pkgbase or an option added to pkg command like "--doonlypkgbase".

So, again, my opinion, current arguments around pkgbase have some valid input/concerns, but it's not the default which means it's maturing, so how about we work to improving it instead of just saying it sucks?

 

[bob2112]

But what if the output of "make buildworld/buildkernel" was a set of packages? And "make install" correctly understood how to deal with them?
Transparent to the user.

For most of us, pkg is a black box which is the opposite of transparent.

My suspicion is that the extra complexity of pkgbase will lead to more updates that require special handling, and more problems - this thread is probably one of the latter.

 

[fahrenheit]

For most of us, pkg is a black box which is the opposite of transparent.

My suspicion is that the extra complexity of pkgbase will lead to more updates that require special handling, and more problems - this thread is probably one of the latter.

It's a black box as much as freebsd-update is, the source is available.
No one is forced to use packages, source builds will continue to work.
If one doesn't want base as packages just build from source. In fact I bet someone will reintroduce the old freebsd update in 16. That's the way oss works.

mer I was overcomplicating, just disable the FreeBSD-base repo on pkg.conf, pkg upgrade will just upgrade ports. You can re-enable on minor upgrades or patch releases.
And you are right, FreeBSD 15 is the release where we can make sure pkgbase is sane and a good tool going forward.

 

[rmomota]

but freebsd-update and pkg tools aren't good enough?
yes, build from source will surely work but it takes lots of time to achieve the same result as freebsd-update unless of course there are custom build parameters.

 

[Zare]

rmomota freebsd-update is much more complex than pkg. Look into the source.

The security patches coming for 15.0 are applied in under a minute on the pkg run.
Whoever has ran freebsd-update, knows it runs for long. Why? Because it is a complex piece of software that works on dynamic basis, figuring out the whole base OS installed, and then figuring out what patches to bring in. Pkg brings a state to this. The base OS is known, the tools don't need to dig through the hard drive to know what update to request.

For most of us, pkg is a black box which is the opposite of transparent.

Err no it isn't. You have the source, you have the open repos, and you have insight into the process of how repos are formed.

What exact black box behaviour are you talking about?

freebsd-update is less transparent. It actually tells you nothing. Pkg actually tells you what exact component is it going to touch.

 

[bob2112]

It's a black box as much as freebsd-update is, the source is available.

I don't use freebsd-update, I'd rather switch to pkg than that.

No one is forced to use packages, source builds will continue to work.

We were discussing the hypothetical removal of straightforward source builds in the future.

 

[mer]

We were discussing the hypothetical removal of straightforward source builds in the future.

I disagree. An assumption was made (paraphrased) that pkgbase would prevent source builds which from everything I've seen is an incorrect assumption.
pkgbase packages need to be built from source, no?
Simplistically, it's the output; pkgbase simply gives more granularity than the old distribution sets.
Honestly, why not ask the question over on the mailing lists:
If I have a package base system, can I still make buildworld make buildkernel make installkernel make installworld? Are there any extra steps?

That way the developers can provide a definitive answer to the question instead of speculation here.

 

[Emrion]

We were discussing the hypothetical removal of straightforward source builds in the future.

It will never happen. Maybe freebsd-update in the way we use it, will disappear. Maybe pkgbase will die, maybe its successor will die too. Never the source build will. After all, it's the Source, isn't it?

So, why such a discussion?

 

[bob2112]

I disagree. An assumption was made (paraphrased) that pkgbase would prevent source builds which from everything I've seen is an incorrect assumption.
pkgbase packages need to be built from source, no?

It was you who postulated that source builds might involve intermediate packages.

 

[fff2024g]

ok. close this topic .wish pkgbase growing fast and stable .thanks.