From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Fri May 23 15:01:26 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8C8B37B401 for ; Fri, 23 May 2003 15:01:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pcwin002.win.tue.nl (pcwin002.win.tue.nl [131.155.71.72]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF30743F3F for ; Fri, 23 May 2003 15:01:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from stijn@pcwin002.win.tue.nl) Received: from pcwin002.win.tue.nl (orb_rules@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pcwin002.win.tue.nl (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h4NM09Vo065594; Sat, 24 May 2003 00:00:09 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from stijn@pcwin002.win.tue.nl) Received: (from stijn@localhost) by pcwin002.win.tue.nl (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h4NM09ih065593; Sat, 24 May 2003 00:00:09 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 00:00:09 +0200 From: Stijn Hoop To: Tim Kientzle Message-ID: <20030523220009.GA64352@pcwin002.win.tue.nl> References: <3ECE800F.9040104@acm.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="huq684BweRXVnRxX" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3ECE800F.9040104@acm.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Bright-Idea: Let's abolish HTML mail! cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: pkg_add and osreldate X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 22:01:27 -0000 --huq684BweRXVnRxX Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 01:09:51PM -0700, Tim Kientzle wrote: > Problem: If someone runs this on a 4.5-STABLE > system, for instance (osreldate=3D450100), then > they will be directed to "packages-4-stable". That's not a problem is it? I thought that all ports and packages should work on reasonably current -STABLE systems, although I think 'reasonably' is pretty undefined :) > It seems that packages-4.5-release would > be more appropriate. So users would default to installing packages with security holes? I think that's not a good idea. > Similarly, this logic claims > that a 3.x system should be using packages from > 5-stable! (Though I don't consider that > a serious problem, of course. ;-) Heh. > I'm considering a simpler scheme: choose the > first item with version <=3D osreldate. > This would seem to provide cleaner handling > of the various borderline cases. I'd think you'd need to encode the branch, ie 400000 <=3D osreldate < 500000 means 'use packages-4-stable', and fall back to packages-4.x-release if -stable is not available. --Stijn --=20 SIGSIG -- signature too long (core dumped) --huq684BweRXVnRxX Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE+zpnpY3r/tLQmfWcRAmTmAKCPXDMrckNx0Lk/Yh9/mCq1SQ7EIQCgmTw/ RXcQuL3QgLkvgaQ2LTci1oY= =B4tv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --huq684BweRXVnRxX--