Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 15:05:40 +0100 From: RW <fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Utility for safe updating of ports in base system Message-ID: <20070418150540.50fe1b1c@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <462593F7.9070201@u.washington.edu> References: <4625128B.6020403@baesystems.com> <20070418000206.5061bb14@gumby.homeunix.com> <462593F7.9070201@u.washington.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 20:43:51 -0700 Garrett Cooper <youshi10@u.washington.edu> wrote: > RW wrote: > > On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:31:39 -0400 > > Adam Stroud <adam.p.stroud@baesystems.com> wrote: > > > > > >> I was just on the FreeBSD "list of projects and ideas fot > >> volunteers" page and I was wondering if anyone was working on the > >> "portupgrade in C" utility. I would be willing to help > >> (code/document/test) if it's needed. > > > > What would be the point of putting any port-upgrading tool in the > > base-system? The ports tree isn't branched, so why branch such > > tools in the base-system. IMO they logically belong in ports where > > they are better able to follow any developments in the > > ports-system. > > I'm working on combining the pkg_* tools along with the existing > makefile system with a bourne shell file for my SoC project(*) > > As for writing a utility in C, why? Almost everything's there right > now and just needs to be strung together with some clever scripting > to make it all work. C in this case is just overkill IMO. > > I'm sorry RW, because while I do agree to some extent, there should > be something out of the box that works with the Makefiles and does > everything necessary to install ports, apart from someone manually > going to each directory and typing in "make install", or using some > "advanced" functionality in the Makefiles. You "make install" (or pkg_add) once to build your preferred tool. If that's too much trouble, sysinstall might add the package as part of a standard profile - it does this with xorg. Or it could add the package when it asks you if you want the ports tree. This is not a serious argument for putting something in the base-system. If you put a build tool in the base-system then sooner or later someone will need a newer version, which means having a port too and flags to say which is the preferred version. This will lead to needless confusion. And since few people will want to upgrade their up-to-date ports with an out-of-date tool, I suspect that most people will go for the ports version anyway. I've yet to hear a single cogent argument for this.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070418150540.50fe1b1c>