Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2012 20:40:03 +0100 From: Matthew Seaman <matthew@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: pkgng suggestion: renaming /usr/sbin/pkg to /usr/sbin/pkg-bootstrap Message-ID: <50426493.7050302@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <50424956.4090804@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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigF94BB08128365E45D0028175 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 01/09/2012 18:43, Tijl Coosemans wrote: > In this scenario the ports tree needs to keep support for older release= s, > but that's a consequence of the fact that there's only one ports tree f= or > all releases. Somewhere in between the ports and the various releases t= here > has to be some form encapsulation, not just for pkg, but for all the to= ols > 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 vers= ions > of pkgng would be a problem because presumably the difference between p= kgng > versions is going to be much smaller than the difference between the ol= d > 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. Cheers, Matthew --=20 Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey --------------enigF94BB08128365E45D0028175 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.16 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlBCZJ8ACgkQ8Mjk52CukIwLkACghy+PUdZEDRxAZrghAlNw5J72 BZ4AniyDwLwzVf/QB5/EDTybEDPmzpP3 =LNKT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigF94BB08128365E45D0028175--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?50426493.7050302>