Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 14:19:30 +0200 From: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.za> To: asami@freebsd.org (Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami) Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/contrib/tcsh - Imported sources Message-ID: <200004161219.OAA90478@grimreaper.grondar.za> In-Reply-To: <vqc3dom8dkv.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu> ; from asami@FreeBSD.org (Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami) "16 Apr 2000 04:55:44 MST." References: <vqc3dom8dkv.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Said asami@FreeBSD.org (Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami):
> * From: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.za>
> * This, then is a shortcoming of the ports system; we need at least two
>
> It is not a shortcoming of the system; it is a policy decision.
OK :-) it is a shortcoming of the policy decision.
> We
> don't want people upgrading their systems and losing packages
> installed in /bin because they only backed up /etc and
> /usr/{local,X11R6}. (It's assumed that people using ports have a
> little more clue than those who only use packages, that's why I don't
> see a problem with such a thing being a port.)
Give the people proper tools and this is no longer a problem.
EG: portscheck(1) is a (not yet wtitten) tool that could compare
/var/db/pkg with what you have and whine in appropriate ways.
I could write this in a day or three if you reckon it is warranted...
> If we are going to decide to allow ports/packages for things like the
> following, it is fine by me.
>
> * 1) statically linked and installed in (say) /local/{bin|sbin} (which is
> * in the root filesystem).
> *
> * 2) kernel modules.
Cool!
M
--
Mark Murray
Join the anti-SPAM movement: http://www.cauce.org
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?200004161219.OAA90478>