From owner-freebsd-ports Mon Aug 28 18:26: 2 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from radon.gryphonsoft.com (mcut-b-078.resnet.purdue.edu [128.211.209.78]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E017537B42C; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 18:25:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by radon.gryphonsoft.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 291D51AA5; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 20:24:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 20:24:07 -0500 From: Will Andrews To: Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami Cc: Kris Kennaway , ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Proposal: PORTREVISION and PORTEPOCH Message-ID: <20000828202407.N73638@radon.gryphonsoft.com> Mail-Followup-To: Will Andrews , Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami , Kris Kennaway , ports@FreeBSD.ORG References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from asami@FreeBSD.ORG on Mon, Aug 28, 2000 at 06:19:48PM -0700 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 4.1-STABLE i386 Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, Aug 28, 2000 at 06:19:48PM -0700, Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami wrote: > I don't know about other shells, but bash seems to think ':' is a > special character (it quotes ':' with a '\' when it does filename > completion). It probably doesn't mean anything, but there's no need > to take chances, can we use another symbol for delimiting > ${PORTEPOCH}? How about $ ? Hmm.. maybe not. What about ``.'' ? > Yes, I think these two sound fine. However, I have a little concern, > in that it will further fragment the /var/db/pkg directory and make it > harder to people to manage it. > > For instance, when a port with a lot of dependents, say, jpeg-6b, is > updated to jpeg-6b_1, the old dependency information will remain in > /var/db/pkg/jpeg-6b/+REQUIRED_BY and be left behind when jpeg-6b_1 is > installed, as there is no check for jpeg-6b when jpeg-6b_1 is added. > > This is of course not a problem of this proposal, just a manifest of > an old problem that could be triggerred with having more different > versions in the user's machine. I need someone to work with me on the > pkg_* tools so we'll have better upgrade support, any takers? Your "problem" is just a result of the historical incapability of pkg_* to properly manage "upgrades". The PORTEPOCH/PORTREVISION thing will help us improve them, not make it harder. I'm currently working on a better mechanism (in fact I promised Kris that I'd send an email about my proposal to -ports yesterday, but I've not had time lately.. okay, I admit, I've been playing too much quakeworld lately.. teehee.. i'll get around to finishing my proposal ;). Eventually code will be available; I'd prefer to iron out the ideas at this idea stage. My goal for implementing the new system is mid-October, around BSDCon. -- Will Andrews GCS/E/S @d- s+:+ a--- C++ UB++++$ P+ L- E--- W+ N-- !o ?K w--- O- M+ V- PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP+>+++ t++ 5 X+ R+ tv+ b++ DI+++ D+ G++ e>++++ h! r- y? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message