From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jul 5 23:19:41 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48E0316A4CE for ; Mon, 5 Jul 2004 23:19:41 +0000 (GMT) Received: from fillmore.dyndns.org (port-212-202-50-15.dynamic.qsc.de [212.202.50.15]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0085A43D55 for ; Mon, 5 Jul 2004 23:19:41 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com) Received: from dhcp-14.local ([172.16.0.14] helo=localhost) by fillmore.dyndns.org with esmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 4.34 (FreeBSD)) id 1BhckL-000LOk-Nl; Tue, 06 Jul 2004 01:19:40 +0200 Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 01:20:08 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v482) To: Michael Nottebrock From: Oliver Eikemeier In-Reply-To: <200407050737.48211.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: KMail/1.5.9 cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org cc: Rob Subject: Re: Rewrite cvsup & portupgrade in C X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2004 23:19:41 -0000 Michael Nottebrock wrote: > On Monday 05 July 2004 04:02, Rob wrote: >> Colin Percival wrote: >>> At 08:12 04/07/2004, Joel Dahl wrote: >>>> 1) Is there a need for a rewrite of cvsup and portupgrade in C so >>>> that >>>> they can be included in the base system? >>> >>> Yes please. :-) >> >> I remember that portupgrade is intentionally not in the base system, to >> allow easier updates for a running system. This way it can be more >> often >> updated than the official releases, to reflect changes in the ports >> system. > > And that's a good thing. Perhaps somebody wants to investigate if some > sort of > packages-only, C based updater which does not need a local ports tree > to work > is feasible. That could very well have a place in the base-system and > also > further promote and ease the use of binary packages. Which doesn't mean it couldn't be part of the 'ports base'. I'm investigating whether a combination of pkg_install and bsd.port.mk couldn't make a `make upgrade' feasible. Currently we just upgrade the pkg_install tools on older systems by installing them as a port, so no problems from this side... -Oliver