Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 09:37:53 -0701 From: Jos Backus <jos@catnook.com> To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Package system flaws? Message-ID: <20020715163815.GB12030@lizzy.catnook.com> In-Reply-To: <20020714214958.GA1228@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> References: <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> <200207141333.g6EDXj0L031673@whizzo.transsys.com> <3D31E944.A8E523E6@FreeBSD.org> <20020714214958.GA1228@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Jul 14, 2002 at 11:49:58PM +0200, Thomas Seck wrote:
> Normally I would second that but IMHO portupgrade(1) is dangerous
> in a way that it is a fine bandaid for the flaws in the current
> implementation of the package system. There is no urge for the
> developers to address these issues because "we have portupgrade". I do
> not fight a religious war against portupgrade(1), I use it myself. But I
> wish I would not have to. That is my point.
While I agree with you in theory, the base-supported tools make writing a
portupgrade-like tool non-trivial (that's the whole point of high-level
scripting languages) which is one reason why only portupgrade exists today.
You could turn this around, too: import Ruby+portupgrade into the base system,
write compatibility wrappers for the existing pkg_* tools and remove the old
pkg_* tools :-)
--
Jos Backus _/ _/_/_/ Santa Clara, CA
_/ _/ _/
_/ _/_/_/
_/ _/ _/ _/
jos@catnook.com _/_/ _/_/_/ require 'std/disclaimer'
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?20020715163815.GB12030>