Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 13:18:42 +0100 From: Sticky Bit <stickybit@gmx.net> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Utility for safe updating of ports in base system Message-ID: <200803201318.44128.stickybit@gmx.net> In-Reply-To: <863aqlpvgf.fsf@pluton.xbsd.name> References: <20080320001048.GA39125@lpthe.jussieu.fr> <863aqlpvgf.fsf@pluton.xbsd.name>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The real question is: ports or packages? Please do not mix them together! If we are talking about ports and ports updating then portmaster is (now) an excellent candidate for this job and I vote for portmaster. If we are talking about packages and package management then portmaster and all other ports updating tools are of course out of context. They are ports management tools - not - package management tools. So please change http://www.freebsd.org/projects/ideas/index.html#p-ports-upgrade The project idea is called 'Utility for safe updating of ports in base system'. The jobs description is false because of using 'pkg_*' but meaning 'port*'. And it really looks just like a request for rewrite portupgrade in C and to put this rewritten portupgrade in base. I strongly vote against it! The entry 'Package tools improvements' http://www.freebsd.org/projects/ideas/index.html#p-ports-pkgtools should be extended / rewritten for a new package management tool (/framework) idea. Michel Talon had described such a tool. So we are actually talking about two different things ... -- Regards, Sticky Bit <stickybit@gmx.net>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200803201318.44128.stickybit>