From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Apr 12 22:19:52 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D1B516A4CE for ; Mon, 12 Apr 2004 22:19:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sarajevo.pacific.net.sg (sarajevo.pacific.net.sg [203.120.90.134]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2F11543D1F for ; Mon, 12 Apr 2004 22:19:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from oceanare@pacific.net.sg) Received: (qmail 29108 invoked from network); 13 Apr 2004 05:19:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO maxwell2.pacific.net.sg) (203.120.90.192) by sarajevo with SMTP; 13 Apr 2004 05:19:49 -0000 Received: from pacific.net.sg ([210.24.202.50]) by maxwell2.pacific.net.sg with ESMTP id <20040413051949.GKYW1277.maxwell2.pacific.net.sg@pacific.net.sg>; Tue, 13 Apr 2004 13:19:49 +0800 Message-ID: <407B780F.5030102@pacific.net.sg> Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 13:18:07 +0800 From: Erich Dollansky Organization: oceanare pte ltd User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7b) Gecko/20040409 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kris Kennaway References: <407B6B43.2050507@pacific.net.sg> <20040413042929.GA24603@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <20040413042929.GA24603@xor.obsecurity.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: Garance A Drosihn cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Second "RFC" on pkg-data idea for ports X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 05:19:52 -0000 Hi, Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Tue, Apr 13, 2004 at 12:23:31PM +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote: > >>It would be real helpfull to users if the package or port system would >>be able to automatically overcome this problem with installing the >>needed version in a way that the installed versions stays intact. > > > Take a look at the portupgrade port, I think that's what you're trying > to describe. > If I understood portupgrade right, it upgrade a port but it still does not allow to keep the old version in parallel allowing one application using the old one while the other application uses the new one. > >>This could lead to a general system where any number of different >>versions of a package or port could be installed on the machine without >>any interferance. > > > That's a very different problem. > But it is what I ment. Erich