From owner-freebsd-arch Sun Jul 14 8:58:18 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F97637B400 for ; Sun, 14 Jul 2002 08:58:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.netcologne.de (smtp.netcologne.de [194.8.194.112]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EFF243E70 for ; Sun, 14 Jul 2002 08:58:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tmseck-lists@netcologne.de) Received: from localhost (xdsl-195-14-205-132.netcologne.de [195.14.205.132]) by smtp.netcologne.de (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g6EFwAUt002428 for ; Sun, 14 Jul 2002 17:58:11 +0200 (MEST) Received: (qmail 4280 invoked by uid 1001); 14 Jul 2002 15:57:29 -0000 Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 17:57:28 +0200 From: Thomas Seck To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Package system flaws? Message-ID: <20020714155728.GA4237@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200207141333.g6EDXj0L031673@whizzo.transsys.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: private site in Germany X-PGP-KeyID: DF46EE05 X-PGP-Fingerprint: A38F AE66 6B11 6EB9 5D1A B67D 2444 2FE1 DF46 EE05 X-Attribution: tms Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Louis A. Mamakos (louie@TransSys.COM): > If you've decided to install optional software on your system using > the ports mechanism, then it doesn't seem too extreme a requirement > that you install a port or package to maintain your ports/packages. Sorry, I cannot follow this kind of reasoning. The problem with portupgrade is that you _need_ it to correct the flaws of the current pkg_* tools. And the more people start recommending the use of portupgrade to new users, the less likely it is that the real issues with the ports/package system ll ever get fixed. > cvsup isn't in the base system, but we manage to use it to keep both > the base system and ports up to date. What has cvsup got to do with it? You can keep your sources up to date with cvs too. cvsup is designed to be more efficient than cvs. It is not a bandaid like portupgrade. And yes, I do not like the fact, that it is written in Modula 3 instead of C{,++}. > I suspect the only result of an attempt to re-write sysutils/portupgrade > in a different language will be that the current developer of that tool > will disappear. I suspect he chose his implementation lanaguge for a > reason. Do you want the tool and developer, or a version in awk/sed/C? Did you ask knu about it or is this speculation on your part? Again, I did not say that the portupgrade _port_ should be rewritten. I meant that one should re-implement the tools knu wrote and put them into the base system as a short term solution. A mid-term solution would be to correct the issues with the dependency handling within the base system. When this is done, people should think about new ways to pack and transport packages. -- Thomas Seck To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message