From owner-freebsd-arch Mon Jul 15 11:12:38 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 6EF2C37B40A for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 11:12:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.netcologne.de (smtp.netcologne.de [194.8.194.112]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7839F43E64 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 11:12:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tmseck-lists@netcologne.de) Received: from localhost (xdsl-213-168-118-173.netcologne.de [213.168.118.173]) by smtp.netcologne.de (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g6FICOUt014961 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 20:12:24 +0200 (MEST) Received: (qmail 1360 invoked by uid 1001); 15 Jul 2002 18:10:34 -0000 Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 20:10:34 +0200 From: Thomas Seck To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Package system flaws? Message-ID: <20020715181034.GB682@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG References: <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> <20020715163815.GB12030@lizzy.catnook.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020715163815.GB12030@lizzy.catnook.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: private site in Germany X-PGP-KeyID: DF46EE05 X-PGP-Fingerprint: A38F AE66 6B11 6EB9 5D1A B67D 2444 2FE1 DF46 EE05 X-Attribution: tms 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 * Jos Backus (jos@catnook.com): > 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. It is probably more difficult to do correctly, agreed. But this has to be done only once and maybe put into a library (libh?). > 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 :-) Three problems with this: - Yet Another Language to maintain, tying up developer resources - I personally do not need Ruby (or $scripting_language_of_the_season) - Licence issues, thus endless political discussions -- Thomas Seck To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message