Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 18:53:18 -0700 (MST) From: Wes Peters - Softweyr LLC <softweyr@xmission.com> To: danny@panda.hilink.com.au (Daniel O'Callaghan) Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: after the release ... Message-ID: <199803210153.SAA13983@xmission.xmission.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.91.980321093437.300D-100000@panda.hilink.com.au> from "Daniel O'Callaghan" at Mar 21, 98 09:42:16 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Daniel O'Callaghan opined:
> The pkg system can be used here. pkgs record their own installation
> event, they have pre and post installation scripts which can display docs
> etc.
Yeah, I like this approach too. Figure out how to handle kernel
patches and you've got it solved. One approach might be to make
kernel object files mandatory, then you can at least re-link a
new kernel, similar to the SunOS distribution.
> Patches with dependencies could check for those.
pkg_add already handles dependency checking and installation.
> > Who would develop the patches? I would say that given a reasonably
> > well-defined set of conventions, the developer should be able to
> > create a patch corresponding to whatever changes he or she developed
> > with very little extra work.
>
> So what we want is a Makefile which will make an update patch, so the
> committer can create this new patch. We might end up with a lot of
> these, though. Perhaps it would be better to have a patchmeister (did I
> hear you volunteer, Drew? :-)) who could collect the patch-package
> creation requests and release an upgrade package every so often.
Or perhaps we'll just have to elect a 'Stable Collector' whose job is
it create patches once they've been fully tested and OK'd by the users
who cvsup -STABLE. This would lead to a smaller and more "stable" set
of patches (hopefully). Richard Wackerbarth provided a service
philosophically similar to this for the 2.1-STABLE community in the
past.
> > What about security? This is an *excellent* point. It's a bit risky
> PGP signature.
This isn't a bad idea for the package utility in general. We could
make it complain about packages with no signature, and refuse to
install packages whose signature doesn't match?
--
"Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?"
Wes Peters Softweyr LLC
http://www.xmission.com/~softweyr softweyr@xmission.com
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199803210153.SAA13983>