Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 23:05:09 +0200 From: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@online.fr> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@regency.nsu.ru>, Cy Schubert - CITS Open Systems Group <Cy.Schubert@uumail.gov.bc.ca>, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Package system wishlist Message-ID: <20020710210509.GA686@lpt.ens.fr> In-Reply-To: <3D2C9A5C.B5701103@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert wrote: > > > Ideally everything should install as a package, however that would > > > > Currently, I cannot agree with this. I had enough head ache in the > > past dealing with packages of "compatibility symlinks", man pages, > > and so on, which seems overly ridiculous to me. I don't consider > > this worthwhile. Generally, I prefer base as monolithic collection > > of bits. > > It is a prerequisite for: > > o Ability to do binary upgrades of the base system in order to > automatically (e.g. via cron) obtain, and optionally install, > security and other fixes. For people who are running -release, what about having an executable shell script, which contains uuencoded patched binaries and, when executed, unpacks them and installs them to the proper locations (like the shell-script "installers" provided by some commercial software vendors), overwriting the old binaries? For people who're running -stable, well, I suppose they don't mind a make world. But such a shell archive may still work. The full bells-and-whistles of a package/ports system are needed for clean uninstalling and dependency tracking. For security fixes in the base system, it seems to me, it's overkill. - Rahul 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?20020710210509.GA686>