Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 23:39:49 +0100 From: Chris Whitehouse <cwhiteh@onetel.com> To: perryh@pluto.rain.com Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: new package system proposal Message-ID: <49DA84B5.1020205@onetel.com> In-Reply-To: <49d7e719.Ck/vxbahdDom2nM0%perryh@pluto.rain.com> References: <49D76B02.4060201@onetel.com> <49d7e719.Ck/vxbahdDom2nM0%perryh@pluto.rain.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
perryh@pluto.rain.com wrote: > Chris Whitehouse <cwhiteh@onetel.com> wrote: >> My suggestion is to start with a ports tree that is fixed in time. >> Make that ports tree available as part of this package system and >> compile a typical desktop set of ports ... > > Isn't this exactly what is currently done as part of a release? The > ports tree is tagged so that a snapshot can be retrieved using csup, > and packages are built for publication on (for example) > ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-7.0-release/ It is but the difference in what I am imagining is the frequency which would be much higher than releases. And answering more than your question, the difference between this and the pkg_add system is that this is based on a fixed ports tree, whereas pkg_add is based on a rolling ports tree, so " > > Granted this includes all package-distributable ports rather than a > "typical desktop" subset. I know you wrote something else but I am too tired to respond or rather to read it properly tonight. Tomorrow... Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?49DA84B5.1020205>