Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 21:08:49 +0100 From: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> To: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Michel Talon <talon@lpthe.jussieu.fr> Subject: Re: suggestion for pkgdb from ports-mgmt/portupgrade: add more explanation Message-ID: <CADLo83-jYnqLLRTHvdPwpxm=_HCYSWuevb6ntypQbM6u4zNqhQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20110902195309.GC19413@lonesome.com> References: <20110902093914.GA92386@lpthe.jussieu.fr> <20110902195309.GC19413@lonesome.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2 Sep 2011 20:53, "Mark Linimon" <linimon@lonesome.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 02, 2011 at 11:39:14AM +0200, Michel Talon wrote: > > My point is that there shouldn't be any edge cases > > In a perfect world: yes. > > > I certainly don't have any precise idea of the things which should be > > changed so that edge cases disappear > > Well, then, we're right back where we started. > > > only *very experienced* people having observed a lot of failure cases > > could give correct advices. > > And we haven't figured them out yet. > > As the tools get better (which they are), we can get more insight into > this. But, as you already understand, it's really hard. > > > Having a file which documents manual intervention is a perpetual > > tenptation to do the things the sloppy way > > I disagree with your logic. None of the FreeBSD committers _want_ this > to be difficult. > +1. Most of us despise its very existence, but recognise that just sometimes, it saves some horribly fragile code from being written. Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLo83-jYnqLLRTHvdPwpxm=_HCYSWuevb6ntypQbM6u4zNqhQ>