From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jul 8 03:26:42 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF85016A4CE for ; Thu, 8 Jul 2004 03:26:42 +0000 (GMT) Received: from troutmask.apl.washington.edu (troutmask.apl.washington.edu [128.208.78.105]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90FBE43D31 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 2004 03:26:42 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu) Received: from troutmask.apl.washington.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) i683QdNu043834; Wed, 7 Jul 2004 20:26:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu) Received: (from sgk@localhost)i683QdoI043833; Wed, 7 Jul 2004 20:26:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sgk) Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 20:26:39 -0700 From: Steve Kargl To: Wesley Morgan Message-ID: <20040708032639.GA43737@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> References: <200407062323.02854.kirk@strauser.com> <20040707043251.GA35651@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <200407062345.24117.kirk@strauser.com> <20040707070012.GC38356@dragon.nuxi.com> <40EC11EB.4060804@sympatico.ca> <20040707152149.GG82302@elvis.mu.org> <20040707160745.GA39557@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20040707224510.E18741@volatile.chemikals.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040707224510.E18741@volatile.chemikals.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Rewrite cvsup & portupgrade in C X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 03:26:42 -0000 On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 10:56:17PM -0400, Wesley Morgan wrote: > On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, Steve Kargl wrote: > > >My initial argument does not invlove the language. I don't > >care about the language. My argument is that neither cvsup > >nor csup belong in the base system. Both utilities can be > >installed from ports. If you're going to import csup, then > >I hope csup goes through a security audit and you define a > >NO_CSUP make.conf variable. > > Does "csup" belong in the tree more, or less than cvs? csup does not belong in the base system. cvs belongs in the base syste > A program that I have used maybe a handful of times because cvsup > is so much better for my purposes is rebuilt with every make world > unless you explicitly disable it (which I would argue that most > people do not). cvsup is built with every make world? > It has had security holes and other issues. And csup won't have any issues? > Why is this in the base system at all? Simply so developers can make > commits from a fresh install? Rhetoric, but correct. You do realize that you can use cvs to retrieve the FreeBSD sources via anoncvs. So, cvsup isn't even needed. > I've seen a lot of things go into the tree over the years, some of which I > question the need for, but hey I just turn it off in make.conf. You have to have the make.conf knob to turn it off/on. Note, my request. > I can't believe how much of a stir this has made. IMO, Bikeshedding > at its finest. Some people are quick to pull out the bikeshed word, when they have nothing to offer to a discussion. -- Steve