5 ms·

OpenBSD's ports tree is only distantly related to FreeBSD, and the package system is a complete rewrite. Implying that it shares any of the same problems withou

by brynet 12y ago

OpenBSD's ports tree is only distantly related to FreeBSD, and the package system is a complete rewrite. Implying that it shares any of the same problems without researching it is being quite disingenuous. Users are only discouraged from building ports because binary packages have been provided for all available port flavours, there is no opportunity for users to customize ports or tweak compile flags without them venturing into the realm of already unsupported tasks. The ownership and permissions of files are tracked, and the package tools will notice if files are missing or have been modified. Dependency tracking, resolution, individual file check-summing and package signing are all performed. And OpenBSD handles the versioning of shared libraries separately for the whole system, even ports. FreeBSD's pkgng was undoubtedly a good move for FreeBSD, but OpenBSD already received it's very own next-generation package system a few years prior.

SwellJoe 12y ago
"Dependency tracking, resolution, individual file check-summing and package signing are all performed." Can you link me to the documentation that covers this? I googled before making my comment, because I have limited (and mostly old) experience with OpenBSD ports, and wanted to be sure I wasn't making incorrect assertions. I couldn't find anything about verifying packages. Anyway, if what you say is true, and OpenBSD now has effective package management, I'm going to spend some time with it, and possibly add support in our installer for it. I was under the (seemingly) mistaken impression that it would have the same faults as ports on FreeBSD.
- brynet 12y ago
  Marc Espie is who developed the package tools, and has given talks about it. Ted Unangst created signify, which is the basis for the package signing capabilities. You could also check the pkg_add(8), signify(1) and ports(7)/packages(7) man pages. http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi/OpenBSD-current/man1/pkg_add.1 http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi/OpenBSD-current/man1/... http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi/OpenBSD-current/man1/signify.1 http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi/OpenBSD-current/man1/... http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi/OpenBSD-current/man7/packages.7 http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi/OpenBSD-current/man7/... http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi/OpenBSD-current/man7/ports.7 http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi/OpenBSD-current/man7/...
  - lcd047 12y ago
    Also relevant: * packages vs. ports[0] * porter's handbook[1] [0]: http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html [1]: http://www.openbsd.org/faq/ports/index.html http://www.openbsd.org/faq/ports/index.html
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- _delirium 12y ago
  Fwiw you can get signed ports for FreeBSD via cperciva's Portsnap [1]. It was released in 2005, but it's taken a while for people to find out about it and switch over from the traditional CVSup updating method. I believe pkgng also supports signed updates, although the FreeBSD Wiki page on it says "TODO: Better signing infrastructure (needs a specification from security officer)" [2]. [1] http://www.daemonology.net/portsnap/ http://www.daemonology.net/portsnap/ [2] https://wiki.freebsd.org/pkgng#TODO https://wiki.freebsd.org/pkgng#TODO
  - cperciva 12y ago
    pngng has been signed for a long time now. That TODO list is hopelessly out of date.
SwellJoe 12y ago
Also, I'm pleased to see there's been recognition in the BSD world that ports was not up to snuff and efforts are being expended to fix it. For many years all I ever saw in these conversations was denial that there was a problem, or that anyone should ever need/want the capabilities provided by apt/dpkg or yum/rpm. I consider good package management to be the primary selection criteria for choosing my operating systems, and I'm always surprised when people consider package management as anything other than the central feature of the OS. Of course, this means Windows and Mac OS X are right out, due to sucking much harder than most at package management.
- na85 12y ago
  It's definitely a major factor. But the community has also a large effect. At least for me. I greatly prefer rpm-based package management, buy I greatly prefer Debian as it allows me to avoid interacting with the egomaniacs that offer 'support' on freenode and the forums.

by brynet 12y ago

SwellJoe 12y ago

"Dependency tracking, resolution, individual file check-summing and package signing are all performed." Can you link me to the documentation that covers this? I googled before making my comment, because I have limited (and mostly old) experience with OpenBSD ports, and wanted to be sure I wasn't making incorrect assertions. I couldn't find anything about verifying packages. Anyway, if what you say is true, and OpenBSD now has effective package management, I'm going to spend some time with it, and possibly add support in our installer for it. I was under the (seemingly) mistaken impression that it would have the same faults as ports on FreeBSD.

brynet 12y ago
Marc Espie is who developed the package tools, and has given talks about it. Ted Unangst created signify, which is the basis for the package signing capabilities. You could also check the pkg_add(8), signify(1) and ports(7)/packages(7) man pages. http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi/OpenBSD-current/man1/pkg_add.1 http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi/OpenBSD-current/man1/... http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi/OpenBSD-current/man1/signify.1 http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi/OpenBSD-current/man1/... http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi/OpenBSD-current/man7/packages.7 http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi/OpenBSD-current/man7/... http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi/OpenBSD-current/man7/ports.7 http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi/OpenBSD-current/man7/...
- lcd047 12y ago
  Also relevant: * packages vs. ports[0] * porter's handbook[1] [0]: http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html [1]: http://www.openbsd.org/faq/ports/index.html http://www.openbsd.org/faq/ports/index.html
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
_delirium 12y ago
Fwiw you can get signed ports for FreeBSD via cperciva's Portsnap [1]. It was released in 2005, but it's taken a while for people to find out about it and switch over from the traditional CVSup updating method. I believe pkgng also supports signed updates, although the FreeBSD Wiki page on it says "TODO: Better signing infrastructure (needs a specification from security officer)" [2]. [1] http://www.daemonology.net/portsnap/ http://www.daemonology.net/portsnap/ [2] https://wiki.freebsd.org/pkgng#TODO https://wiki.freebsd.org/pkgng#TODO
- cperciva 12y ago
  pngng has been signed for a long time now. That TODO list is hopelessly out of date.

SwellJoe 12y ago

Also, I'm pleased to see there's been recognition in the BSD world that ports was not up to snuff and efforts are being expended to fix it. For many years all I ever saw in these conversations was denial that there was a problem, or that anyone should ever need/want the capabilities provided by apt/dpkg or yum/rpm. I consider good package management to be the primary selection criteria for choosing my operating systems, and I'm always surprised when people consider package management as anything other than the central feature of the OS. Of course, this means Windows and Mac OS X are right out, due to sucking much harder than most at package management.

na85 12y ago
It's definitely a major factor. But the community has also a large effect. At least for me. I greatly prefer rpm-based package management, buy I greatly prefer Debian as it allows me to avoid interacting with the egomaniacs that offer 'support' on freenode and the forums.