From owner-freebsd-ports Fri Sep 8 22:41:57 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mail.hiwaay.net (fly.HiWAAY.net [208.147.154.56]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB76D37B59E for ; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 22:41:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bonsai.hiwaay.net (tnt6-216-180-4-137.dialup.HiWAAY.net [216.180.4.137]) by mail.hiwaay.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id e895bi727029; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 00:37:44 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from steve@localhost) by bonsai.hiwaay.net (8.11.0/8.9.3) id e895bhw93957; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 00:37:43 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from steve) Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 00:37:43 -0500 From: Steve Price To: Will Andrews Cc: FreeBSD Ports Subject: PortsNG (was Re: Ports Options Paper) Message-ID: <20000909003743.B92984@bonsai.hiwaay.net> References: <20000903052226.E1205@radon.gryphonsoft.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: <20000903052226.E1205@radon.gryphonsoft.com>; from will@physics.purdue.edu on Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 05:22:26AM -0500 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT i386 Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org I go to a company picnic and drive my weary self home to find a flurry of emails. I wish I had the energy left to address everyone's comments but I still think we are not all rowing in the same direction so hopefully I can voice my concerns with a single message. I believe there to be one theme and that is that we need a better upgrade mechanism. What we really haven't spelled out sufficiently in my mind is what exactly it is that we want to achieve. I'll say it again. We need to define in concrete terms what is good, bad, and needs fixin' with our current system. Once everyone is on the same sheet of music, then and only then can we start talking about how we design and code fixes. Please let's forget about the 10 perl scripts, 3 acts of congress, and 2 acts of God for a few minutes. Let's define the problem fully first and then start talking about ways in which we can address them. I have a feeling that we'll come up with several distinct tasks that we can design together and code in parallel. For instance, we'll probably end up needing a better (read, more flexible) package format in the long run, but we must define our expectations of it before we jump in and start coding it otherwise we'll be back here next year doing the same thing. If we ever get through hacking hacks that is. Let's start by defining a wishlist[1]. I'll start with one very high on my list. Let's say we have two ports of libfoo. The only difference between them is that one is built WITH_BAR and the other without. If you look at the pkgballs for each of these maybe 90% of the files in them will be exactly the same. What I'd like to see is a way to have a base (barebones) libfoo package and a satellite package with only the files that change when built WITH_BAR. Sounds pretty easy so let's take this one step further. Let's suppose the same libfoo port is updated to a new version and now can also be built WITH_ICK. Here's where it gets tricky. Are WITH_BAR and WITH_ICK mutually exclusive or can both of them be on at the same time? If the former then the new system needs to have the smarts to recognise that there is a conflict and do 'something' about it. In the latter case we need to have in place the infrastructure to build libfoo, libfoo_bar, libfoo_ick, and libfoo_bar_ick. Things like this are what we *must* nail down before we to decide to pilfer, purchase, or code it ourselves. Am I the only one that feels this way? -steve [1] For all you design purists you can read wishlist as vision statement. A good vision statement is a precursor to defining requirements... To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message