From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jul 8 02:56:30 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83EA616A4CE for ; Thu, 8 Jul 2004 02:56:30 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ms-smtp-02-eri0.southeast.rr.com (ms-smtp-02-lbl.southeast.rr.com [24.25.9.101]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F20FC43D48 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 2004 02:56:27 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from morganw@chemikals.org) Received: from volatile.chemikals.org (cpe-024-211-118-154.sc.rr.com [24.211.118.154])i682uNNr010355; Wed, 7 Jul 2004 22:56:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from volatile.chemikals.org (morganw@localhost [127.0.0.1]) i682uJ3G019011; Wed, 7 Jul 2004 22:56:20 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from morganw@chemikals.org) Received: from localhost (morganw@localhost)i682uHgZ019008; Wed, 7 Jul 2004 22:56:17 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from morganw@chemikals.org) X-Authentication-Warning: volatile.chemikals.org: morganw owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 22:56:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Wesley Morgan To: Steve Kargl In-Reply-To: <20040707160745.GA39557@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Message-ID: <20040707224510.E18741@volatile.chemikals.org> References: <200407062323.02854.kirk@strauser.com> <200407062345.24117.kirk@strauser.com><40EC11EB.4060804@sympatico.ca> <20040707160745.GA39557@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Rewrite cvsup & portupgrade in C X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 02:56:30 -0000 On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, Steve Kargl wrote: > My initial argument does not invlove the language. I don't > care about the language. My argument is that neither cvsup > nor csup belong in the base system. Both utilities can be > installed from ports. If you're going to import csup, then > I hope csup goes through a security audit and you define a > NO_CSUP make.conf variable. Does "csup" belong in the tree more, or less than cvs? A program that I have used maybe a handful of times because cvsup is so much better for my purposes is rebuilt with every make world unless you explicitly disable it (which I would argue that most people do not). It has had security holes and other issues. Why is this in the base system at all? Simply so developers can make commits from a fresh install? I can imagine a similar argument to this one taking place when cvs was imported. I do know that I rarely bother upgrading cvsup because of the trouble it gave me. Binaries were never available for 5.0-current. I don't even bother to use the port, instead I just copy around an old binary that still works for me. It's always been a pain to GET cvsup. I've seen a lot of things go into the tree over the years, some of which I question the need for, but hey I just turn it off in make.conf. I can't believe how much of a stir this has made. IMO, Bikeshedding at its finest. WNM