Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 03:37:33 +0000 From: dicen@hooked.net To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> Cc: torstenb@freebsd.org, John Fieber <jfieber@indiana.edu>, asami@freebsd.org, ports@freebsd.org, www@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports/2190: need cross-reference to xpdf from X11 ports tree Message-ID: <32AF7DFD.15FB7483@hooked.net> References: <4015.850388548@time.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
>
> > I totally agree here. The ports management system (or lack there of)
> > needs major improvement. The package system isn't much better.
>
> We arrive at this point about once every 6 months. In order to save
> time for all concerned, here's the script we generally use:
>
> 0. Someone complains about an obvious shortcoming of the ports & packaging
> system which has been known about for (checks watch) going on 3 years
> now.
>
> 1. I respond with "we know both systems are deficient, please submit your
> prototype code for improving it and we'll start the review process; a
> catalog of shortcomings we already have, it's working solutions we need
> now."
>
> 2. The original folks complaining about the ports/package system
> come back with "oh, I'm much too busy/inexperienced/tired to actually
> do anything about it right now, I just thought you'd want to know."
>
No sorry, this isn't me.
> 3. A few people who are genuinely motivated to work on the problem but
> truly far too busy to do anything else submit tentative proposals
> "in case anyone should want to pick [the problem] up." Someone also
> usually suggests the PRMs about this point and starts a whole
> sub-discussion on their shortcomings.
This is where I come in but I don't do the discussions.
I have hated this damn ports system so long. This is what I am doing.
For a temporary fix
I will finish the little scripts I started that update the ports when
the entire
/usr/ports tree is updated with cvs. I don't consider this much of
anything though.
For a more permanent system I will look into rmp. I would like to use
redhats X based
apps motified for FreeBSD. I don't know much about them, can I get the
source or does
Red Hat own that part? Failing X based rpm I may go still use text based
rmp. I will
see how it goes. In the meen time this is the load you will expect on
your server
sup.FreeBSD.org if that is what users are expected to use.
A. A user wishes to install a port. He types ...portinstall foobar.....
0. Error checking done.
1. The user's /usr/ports is updated with cvs.
2. A make is done in the appropriate directory to install the port.
3. If successful a make install is done.
4. If successful a database file is updated (text file) saying
the port installed with version fooversion.
5. If not successful an error message is returned.
6. A make clean is done in the appropriate directory.
B. A user wishes to update all of the ports. He types ...portupdate
all...
0. Error checking done.
1. The user's /usr/ports is updated with cvs.
2. A loop begins.
3. A make is done in an installed ports directory.
4. If successful a pkg_delete is executed to remove the port's
old installed files. (unless make reinstall always works
which I doubt)
5. If successfull a make install is done of the new port.
6. If not successful an error is printed.
7. Loop back to 2.
Depending on the time it takes to do a cvs and how many ports are
installed, it may
be wise to do a fetch for the ports themselves from ftp.freebsd.org or a
mirror.
This would replace 1. is both A and B with fetches. Other options that
would
be nice are CFLAGS settings and which compiler to use (although this
introduces
dependences) in the ports database file.
Now what all of this leaves out is maintaining the ftp.freebsd.org site.
That is the
hard part. The /usr/ports must be uptodate. I never said I would write
those scripts.
I suspect that have already been written.
dicen
I don't do the politico bellow.
>
> 4. I submit a longer proposal based on several of the other proposals
> which only one or two people actually read, the rest going "damn,
> there's another really long proposal from jkh! I'll, erm, file it."
>
> 5. Most agree that there have been some "really good ideas discussed, yep,
> and wouldn't the ports/packages system be better off if someone
> implemented them. Yep."
>
> 6. Silence.
>
> 7. Unconditional branch to step 0.
>
> :-)
>
> Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?32AF7DFD.15FB7483>