Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 10:18:13 -0800 From: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@winston.osd.bsdi.com> To: Brian Kraemer <kraemer@u.washington.edu> Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Ports updating... Good ways? Message-ID: <17491.981656293@winston.osd.bsdi.com> In-Reply-To: Message from Brian Kraemer <kraemer@u.washington.edu> of "Thu, 08 Feb 2001 10:08:45 PST." <Pine.A41.4.21.0102081002450.69276-100000@mead4.u.washington.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> The major downside of this is that it depends (no pun intended) on the > user knowing how each dependency should be handled, which they may or may > not know. However I would think it would make implementing "make update" > much easier. Even with this user-interaction, I still think it would be a > big win over updating each port and dependency by hand. Well, I actually happen to think that this level of automation will be just enough to land the user in the mud, stranded between two banks. By this, I'm saying that it's reasonable to assume that the lion's share of users won't have the faintest idea whether a given port can be safely Replaced, Augmented or Occluded and those who really *do* know are also skilled enough to just do it by hand, something many of those same individuals have already implemented their own automation for. If it's an interface as "public" as update, however, then all you're really guaranteeing is that a bunch of naive users will think it's the "real" update feature and start leaning too hard on it, to everyone's general sorrow and despair as the breakage reports start coming in. :-) - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?17491.981656293>