Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 01:20:08 +0200 From: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> To: Michael Nottebrock <michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> Cc: Rob <stopspam@users.sourceforge.net> Subject: Re: Rewrite cvsup & portupgrade in C Message-ID: <DB51B5C0-CED9-11D8-9FE1-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com> In-Reply-To: <200407050737.48211.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?DB51B5C0-CED9-11D8-9FE1-00039312D914>