From owner-freebsd-arch Mon Jul 15 9:37:58 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11A2237B400 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 09:37:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from w250.z064001178.sjc-ca.dsl.cnc.net (adsl-66.218.45.239.dslextreme.com [66.218.45.239]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9708A43E4A for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 09:37:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jos@catnook.com) Received: (qmail 20572 invoked by uid 1000); 15 Jul 2002 16:38:15 -0000 Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 09:37:53 -0701 From: Jos Backus To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Package system flaws? Message-ID: <20020715163815.GB12030@lizzy.catnook.com> Reply-To: jos@catnook.com Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG References: <20020712121427.GD3678@lummux.tchpc.tcd.ie> <20020712144854.GA756@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> <20020713054141.A26277@misty.eyesbeyond.com> <20020713011750.GA755@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> <20020714042237.GD931@lizzy.catnook.com> <20020714042623.GB95460@squall.waterspout.com> <20020714095939.GA588@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> <200207141333.g6EDXj0L031673@whizzo.transsys.com> <3D31E944.A8E523E6@FreeBSD.org> <20020714214958.GA1228@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020714214958.GA1228@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sun, Jul 14, 2002 at 11:49:58PM +0200, Thomas Seck wrote: > Normally I would second that but IMHO portupgrade(1) is dangerous > in a way that it is a fine bandaid for the flaws in the current > implementation of the package system. There is no urge for the > developers to address these issues because "we have portupgrade". I do > not fight a religious war against portupgrade(1), I use it myself. But I > wish I would not have to. That is my point. While I agree with you in theory, the base-supported tools make writing a portupgrade-like tool non-trivial (that's the whole point of high-level scripting languages) which is one reason why only portupgrade exists today. You could turn this around, too: import Ruby+portupgrade into the base system, write compatibility wrappers for the existing pkg_* tools and remove the old pkg_* tools :-) -- Jos Backus _/ _/_/_/ Santa Clara, CA _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ jos@catnook.com _/_/ _/_/_/ require 'std/disclaimer' To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message