Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 09:49:54 -0500 (CDT) From: "Sean C. Farley" <scf@FreeBSD.org> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Utility for safe updating of ports in base system Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.1.10.0803200943480.3756@thor.farley.org> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.1.10.0803200047360.54264@ync.qbhto.arg> References: <20080320001048.GA39125@lpthe.jussieu.fr> <alpine.BSF.1.10.0803200047360.54264@ync.qbhto.arg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 20 Mar 2008, Doug Barton wrote: > On Thu, 20 Mar 2008, Michel Talon wrote: > >> In my opinion, an example of a correct "pkg_upgrade" type programm >> written in C++ is the Debian apt-get. It works predictably, fast, >> etc. One of its features, that i consider very important for correct >> operation, is that it computes the list of all packages to be deleted >> and all packages to be installed and asks the user if he agrees >> before doing anything. > > Why do you consider this an important feature? (I'm not disagreeing, > just curious about your thought process here.) Personally, I like to know everything that will happen before it happens. When options change, I am not always sure what it will bring. For example, I do not have HAL (WITHOUT_HAL via portconf) installed on my system. Some ports may try to bring it in regardless of the setting; I would like to see that first. In this case, I think portmaster -na gives me an idea of what will happen. Sean -- scf@FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.1.10.0803200943480.3756>