Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 12:59:14 -0700 From: Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com> To: Matthew Seaman <matthew@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: pkgng suggestion: renaming /usr/sbin/pkg to /usr/sbin/pkg-bootstrap Message-ID: <CAGH67wTuHwbt5kx-nUkyKJny3GfS_aFGfDjSf6FkkYN=SmRQ%2Bw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <50426493.7050302@FreeBSD.org> References: <97612B57-1255-4BB3-A6D3-FC74324C6D67@FreeBSD.org> <503FF0EE.2020605@FreeBSD.org> <20120831095910.GQ64447@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <201208310810.50725.jhb@freebsd.org> <20120831122211.GS64447@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <50424956.4090804@freebsd.org> <50426493.7050302@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Matthew Seaman <matthew@freebsd.org> wrote:
> On 01/09/2012 18:43, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
>> In this scenario the ports tree needs to keep support for older releases,
>> but that's a consequence of the fact that there's only one ports tree for
>> all releases. Somewhere in between the ports and the various releases there
>> has to be some form encapsulation, not just for pkg, but for all the tools
>> used by the ports tree. Given how the ports tree currently encapsulates
>> both the old and new pkg tools I don't see how supporting multiple versions
>> of pkgng would be a problem because presumably the difference between pkgng
>> versions is going to be much smaller than the difference between the old
>> and new tools.
>
> New functionality already in the process of development will entail
> making non-backwards compatible changes to the DB schema. If we're tied
> to supporting a version of pkgng bundled with a release, that's going to
> make rolling out such changes much harder. On the other hand, if pkgng
> is in ports, then we can release a new version and simultaneously
> publish new package sets (incorporating the update to pkgng) from the
> repositories which will have been built using the updated DB schema.
>
> The ports tree doesn't track the versioning of the base system, and it
> makes perfect sense to me that tools for dealing with the ports should
> follow changes to ports rather than changes to the base.
Again, this is part of the reason why I suggested multiple release
trains. Although it's more painful for bapt@, et all, it's ultimately
what would need to be done in order for pkgng to be packaged with a
release or set of releases.
I would be happy to assist with this -- it's the least I could do.
Thanks,
-Garrett
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAGH67wTuHwbt5kx-nUkyKJny3GfS_aFGfDjSf6FkkYN=SmRQ%2Bw>