Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 00:00:09 +0200 From: Stijn Hoop <stijn@win.tue.nl> To: Tim Kientzle <kientzle@acm.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: pkg_add and osreldate Message-ID: <20030523220009.GA64352@pcwin002.win.tue.nl> In-Reply-To: <3ECE800F.9040104@acm.org> References: <3ECE800F.9040104@acm.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--huq684BweRXVnRxX Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 01:09:51PM -0700, Tim Kientzle wrote: > Problem: If someone runs this on a 4.5-STABLE > system, for instance (osreldate=3D450100), then > they will be directed to "packages-4-stable". That's not a problem is it? I thought that all ports and packages should work on reasonably current -STABLE systems, although I think 'reasonably' is pretty undefined :) > It seems that packages-4.5-release would > be more appropriate. So users would default to installing packages with security holes? I think that's not a good idea. > Similarly, this logic claims > that a 3.x system should be using packages from > 5-stable! (Though I don't consider that > a serious problem, of course. ;-) Heh. > I'm considering a simpler scheme: choose the > first item with version <=3D osreldate. > This would seem to provide cleaner handling > of the various borderline cases. I'd think you'd need to encode the branch, ie 400000 <=3D osreldate < 500000 means 'use packages-4-stable', and fall back to packages-4.x-release if -stable is not available. --Stijn --=20 SIGSIG -- signature too long (core dumped) --huq684BweRXVnRxX Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE+zpnpY3r/tLQmfWcRAmTmAKCPXDMrckNx0Lk/Yh9/mCq1SQ7EIQCgmTw/ RXcQuL3QgLkvgaQ2LTci1oY= =B4tv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --huq684BweRXVnRxX--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030523220009.GA64352>