From owner-freebsd-ports Tue Mar 11 09:17:10 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id JAA20399 for ports-outgoing; Tue, 11 Mar 1997 09:17:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.follonett.no (nic.follonett.no [194.198.43.10]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA20367; Tue, 11 Mar 1997 09:16:54 -0800 (PST) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by nic.follonett.no (8.8.5/8.8.3) with UUCP id SAA25444; Tue, 11 Mar 1997 18:13:54 +0100 (MET) Received: from oo7 (oo7.dimaga.com [192.0.0.65]) by dimaga.com (8.7.5/8.7.2) with SMTP id SAA25410; Tue, 11 Mar 1997 18:18:36 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970311181724.00bf7990@dimaga.com> X-Sender: eivind@dimaga.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 18:17:25 +0100 To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" From: Eivind Eklund Subject: Re: Getting /usr/ports everywhere... Cc: ports@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-ports@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk At 07:59 AM 3/11/97 -0800, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: [... on source distributions in sysinstall...] >And depending on what you choose, you get tossed into another area of >Q&A about where you want to receive the CTM updates or where the CVSup >files should go, etc and so forth, and it's all automated. Once the >user has chosen which "source program" to apply for, the updates just >happen automagically from then on out. > >That's the way I'd like it to be, anyhow, but unfortunately all of >that also takes time and work, too... Heck, it took me over two years >just to get a registration screen into sysinstall. I don't see an >immediate opportunity for adding easy automated source tracking. :-) > > Jordan > >P.S. That's also my sneaky way of saying that if anyone else had a >penchant for hacking this sort of thing into sysinstall, I'd be more >than happy to point them in the right directions. :) Weren't you planning to write a replacement for sysinstall? In that case, it sounds somewhat wasteful to put that much work into it. I was thinking more along the lines of just adding a simple bindist - which I assume is fairly simple. It wouldn't be a perfect solution, but it would be better than nothing. (Patches not included as I wouldn't have the diskspace to test them.) OTOH, if you are going to keep working on the present sysinstall, I agree that something more elaborate would be nice - but do we need that if nobody has time/inclination to make it? (Yeah, I'd like to put my code a bit further along where my mouth should have been, but I have had my mouth too many places already and have to catch up with it first.) Eivind Eklund perhaps@yes.no http://maybe.yes.no/perhaps/ eivind@freebsd.org