Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 17:57:28 +0200 From: Thomas Seck <tmseck-lists@netcologne.de> To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Package system flaws? Message-ID: <20020714155728.GA4237@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> In-Reply-To: <200207141333.g6EDXj0L031673@whizzo.transsys.com> References: <p05111700b953ed16c118@[128.113.24.47]> <p05111701b953f38542f8@[128.113.24.47]> <20020712121427.GD3678@lummux.tchpc.tcd.ie> <20020712144854.GA756@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> <20020713054141.A26277@misty.eyesbeyond.com> <20020713011750.GA755@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> <20020714042237.GD931@lizzy.catnook.com> <20020714042623.GB95460@squall.waterspout.com> <20020714095939.GA588@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> <200207141333.g6EDXj0L031673@whizzo.transsys.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Louis A. Mamakos (louie@TransSys.COM):
> If you've decided to install optional software on your system using
> the ports mechanism, then it doesn't seem too extreme a requirement
> that you install a port or package to maintain your ports/packages.
Sorry, I cannot follow this kind of reasoning. The problem with
portupgrade is that you _need_ it to correct the flaws of the current
pkg_* tools. And the more people start recommending the use of
portupgrade to new users, the less likely it is that the real issues
with the ports/package system ll ever get fixed.
> cvsup isn't in the base system, but we manage to use it to keep both
> the base system and ports up to date.
What has cvsup got to do with it? You can keep your sources up to date
with cvs too. cvsup is designed to be more efficient than cvs. It is not
a bandaid like portupgrade. And yes, I do not like the fact, that it is
written in Modula 3 instead of C{,++}.
> I suspect the only result of an attempt to re-write sysutils/portupgrade
> in a different language will be that the current developer of that tool
> will disappear. I suspect he chose his implementation lanaguge for a
> reason. Do you want the tool and developer, or a version in awk/sed/C?
Did you ask knu about it or is this speculation on your part? Again, I
did not say that the portupgrade _port_ should be rewritten. I meant
that one should re-implement the tools knu wrote and put them into the
base system as a short term solution. A mid-term solution would be to
correct the issues with the dependency handling within the base system.
When this is done, people should think about new ways to pack and
transport packages.
--
Thomas Seck
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020714155728.GA4237>