From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 18 14:05:44 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7612816A403 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2007 14:05:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com) Received: from mxout-03.mxes.net (mxout-03.mxes.net [216.86.168.178]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F50613C45D for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2007 14:05:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com) Received: from gumby.homeunix.com (unknown [87.81.140.128]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFE52519DC for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:05:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 15:05:40 +0100 From: RW To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org 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> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 2.8.1 (GTK+ 2.10.11; i386-portbld-freebsd6.2) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Utility for safe updating of ports in base system X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 14:05:44 -0000 On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 20:43:51 -0700 Garrett Cooper wrote: > RW wrote: > > On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:31:39 -0400 > > Adam Stroud 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.