Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 00:37:48 +0200 From: Thomas Seck <tmseck-lists@netcologne.de> To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Package system flaws? Message-ID: <20020714223748.GA1460@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> In-Reply-To: <p0511170cb9579c8bdff1@[128.113.24.47]> 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> <p0511170cb9579c8bdff1@[128.113.24.47]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Garance A Drosihn (drosih@rpi.edu): > At 11:59 AM +0200 7/14/02, Thomas Seck wrote: > >Agreed. But portupgrade(1) is somewhat special, because it is > >the only way you can keep your locally installed packages up > >to date without thrashing your pkg db. > > "If you write it, they will come". If a superior solution shows > up in C, people will be happy to use it. People are happy to > use portupgrade because it is better than not using it. "You want it fixed, you fix it", I know. I would like to see portupgrade obsoleted in the near future. [...] > >The whole discussion I read so far seems to do the second or > >even the third step before the first. > > Portupgrade has been improving rapidly over the last year or so, > and that's been because we were lucky enough to have someone who > was interested in making continuous improvements to it. I can > think of areas where it could use more improvement, so that is > what I comment on. The fact that it is written in ruby has not > caused me any problems so far, so I do not care about that aspect > of it. Please do not get me wrong: I do appreciate the work knu has invested and the quality of the tools in the sysutils/portupgrade suite is high. > I guess what I'm saying is that the above priority list is your > priority list. I want to talk about "step 2" first, because it > is not "step 2" on my priority list, it is "step 1". The fact > that so few people are talking about your "step 1" is merely a > strong hint that most people do not have your list of priorities. I meant it literally, step 2 on my list was meant to be the "first step". As a short term solution, "step 0.5" would be to import knu's tools into the base system until a better solution is found or the pkg_* tools are rewritten - this would mean that they had to be rewritten. That was what I meant with the first item on my list. -- 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?20020714223748.GA1460>