pkgbase: Move libz and libcrypt from runtime to clibs
AbandonedPublic
Actions

Authored by dfr on Sep 15 2023, 1:00 PM.

Details

Reviewers

Group Reviewers

Summary

This makes it possible to run simple workloads such as nginx in a
shell-free environment using the clibs and openssl-lib packages.

PR: 273783
MFC after: 1 week

Diff Detail

Repository

rG FreeBSD src repository

Lint

Lint Passed

Unit

No Test Coverage

Build Status

Buildable 53599
Build 50490: arc lint + arc unit

Event Timeline

dfr created this revision.Sep 15 2023, 1:00 PM

Herald added a subscriber: imp. · View Herald TranscriptSep 15 2023, 1:00 PM

dfr requested review of this revision.Sep 15 2023, 1:00 PM

Harbormaster completed remote builds in B53599: Diff 127419.Sep 15 2023, 1:00 PM

freebsd_igalic.co added a reviewer: pkgbase.Nov 14 2023, 1:46 PM

freebsd_igalic.co added a project: pkgbase.

I'm not against *this* specifically, it will be nice to be able to have a shell-free nginx without FreeBSD-runtime but if we start doing this I think that we will end up moving all the libs in clibs.
I mean, it works with nginx but what about other programs ? Some that needs casper libs for example or gssapi ? Those are still in FreeBSD-runtime. Right now FreeBSD-runtime is only 8MiB so that's not that big.
I think that the question is should we have a FreeBSD-sh package or not.

In D41873#975075, @manu wrote:

I think that the question is should we have a FreeBSD-sh package or not.

I really like the idea of a FreeBSD-sh package - it covers what I'm trying to achieve here and avoids breaking up the carefully curated set of libs in runtime. We would have to be careful about upgrades to try to avoid leaving systems without /bin/sh.

In D41873#975103, @dfr wrote:

In D41873#975075, @manu wrote:

I think that the question is should we have a FreeBSD-sh package or not.

I really like the idea of a FreeBSD-sh package - it covers what I'm trying to achieve here and avoids breaking up the carefully curated set of libs in runtime. We would have to be careful about upgrades to try to avoid leaving systems without /bin/sh.

There is always FreeBSD-rescue in case sh fails to upgrade

In D41873#975104, @manu wrote:

In D41873#975103, @dfr wrote:

In D41873#975075, @manu wrote:

I think that the question is should we have a FreeBSD-sh package or not.

I really like the idea of a FreeBSD-sh package - it covers what I'm trying to achieve here and avoids breaking up the carefully curated set of libs in runtime. We would have to be careful about upgrades to try to avoid leaving systems without /bin/sh.

There is always FreeBSD-rescue in case sh fails to upgrade

Good point. I will abandon this review and make one to add FreeBSD-sh.

dfr abandoned this revision.Nov 24 2023, 10:33 AM

In D41873#975105, @dfr wrote:

In D41873#975104, @manu wrote:

In D41873#975103, @dfr wrote:

In D41873#975075, @manu wrote:

I think that the question is should we have a FreeBSD-sh package or not.

I really like the idea of a FreeBSD-sh package - it covers what I'm trying to achieve here and avoids breaking up the carefully curated set of libs in runtime. We would have to be careful about upgrades to try to avoid leaving systems without /bin/sh.

There is always FreeBSD-rescue in case sh fails to upgrade

Good point. I will abandon this review and make one to add FreeBSD-sh.

Looking at the contents of FreeBSD-runtime, I wonder it it would be better to just split out the libs into FreeBSD-runtime-libs - that would probably also avoid the upgrade problem.