Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 22 Mar 1998 22:57:12 -0800
From:      Greg Shenaut <greg@bogslab.ucdavis.edu>
To:        stable@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: Binary package updates, etc. 
Message-ID:  <199803230657.WAA10963@myrtle1.bogs.org>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 23 Mar 1998 17:35:09 %2B1100." <Pine.BSF.3.91.980323172519.300J-100000@panda.hilink.com.au> 

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <Pine.BSF.3.91.980323172519.300J-100000@panda.hilink.com.au>, "Daniel O'Callaghan" cleopede:
>
>I think Derek is doing a great job!  Congrats.  However, I do also think 
>that Cy Schubert made a very valid point that we need to identify what it 
>is that is going to be updated using this package mechanism.
>
>If the pkg mechanism include feature enhancements to the system, then 
>people may be reluctant to use it, lest they change somethin on 
>which their system depends.  Alex changed the size of the ipfw structure 
>and created an incompatibility between ipfw(8) and ip_fw.[ch] last 
>November/December.  The result was that a kernel upgrade meant a 
>userland upgrade for ipfw(8).  This is likely to be a good reason many 
>will shy away from enhancement packages.
>
>If the pkg mechanism is only for bug fixes, that's fine, until you need 
>to produce a package for a bug fix in an enhancement.
>
>The only way to cater for both scenarios is to flag each package as 
>either ENHANCEMENT or FIX, and make any FIX packages dependent on the 
>ENHANCEMENT package.

I think patches are very different from packages.  Packages are
optional modules which can be added to a system; patches fix bugs
in the system.  Packages are distributed with the CD-ROM; it would
make no sense for a patch to be distributed with a CD-ROM.  It may
or may not be the case that a mechanism similar to that which is
currently being used for packages could be bent to implement patches,
but I can't see what this buys us.  I don't think it really matters
very much how a particular patch is implemented--it should be up
to the developer.  What we need to do is to specify the semantics
of a patch so that the patches can be distributed and applied with
a minimum of fuss.

-Greg

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199803230657.WAA10963>