[OpenIndiana-discuss] Do you ever think about adopting APT+DPKG?

[Chris]

On 2021-03-02 09:56, Judah Richardson wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 11:43 AM Chris <oidev at sunos.info> wrote:
> 
>> On 2021-03-01 06:33, cretin1997 via openindiana-discuss wrote:
>> > We have the tech there. Well adapted for our needs. APT+DPKG based
>> Illumos
>> > distro
>> > is not unpopular. Some distros even use RPM.
>> >
>> > Most historic APT+DPKG based distros already dead, only DilOS is left
>> now.
>> > So we
>> > could have a look at DilOS, the way they patched and utilizing APT+DPKG
>> and
>> > we can
>> > even co-operate with them, if both side wanted.
>> >
>> > We already see too many problems of the IPS pkg. Could we switch to
>> another
>> > path?
>> >
>> > I know compatibility haunted us. But recently we broke it already. It's
>> no
>> > longer
>> > the holy grail we have to keep at all cost anymore.
>> >
>> > Could we patch our oi-userland to generate DEB packages alongside of IPS
>> > packages?
>> >
>> > The DilOS people has figured out how to build illumos-gate into DEB
>> packages
>> > already.
>> >
>> > This will not as hard as doing from scratch as we have many references.
>> There are many possible "package managers" available. Some have already
>> been
>> recobbled
>> to support Solaris derivatives. But IMHO the DEB package managers are not
>> as
>> efficient
>> 
> I'd say this is largely an academic argument. I have 3 machines that use
> apt + deb with no associated issues. Actually, # apt dist-upgrade on Debian
> Buster, Ubuntu 20.10, and Raspberry Pi OS Buster runs MUCH faster than #
> pkg update -v -r on OI Hipster with approximately the same underlying
> hardware (Intel Core 2nd Gen, 16 GB RAM) for the OI, Debian, and Ubuntu
> machines.
> 
> as many of the others, it's a real "cache thrasher".
> 
> I don't think this is an issue if you have a decent (e.g. Samsung 860 Evo
> or better) SSD with good endurance specs.
Agreed. It's also not an issue with more RAM/cores && higher frequencies. ;-)

In the end, I don't really care _which_ package manager is chosen; as long
as there is only _one_ and that it's the simplest to use for the package 
*creators* :-)
Ultimately; that should ensure the most packages for the users, with the 
greatest
package integrity. No? :-)

--Chris
> 
> Many of the others are
>> more DB
>> centric. Which tends to make them much faster and less resource abusive.
>> 

-- 
~10yrs a FreeBSD maintainer of ~160 ports
~40yrs of UNIX