Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 05:45:29 +1000 From: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> To: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: BDB corrupt Message-ID: <20080514194529.GB64804@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20080514102410.639f16ef@mbook.local> References: <15336578.20080512123806@mail.ru> <200805121153.00809.jonathan%2Bfreebsd-hackers@hst.org.za> <1663320218.20080512223531@mail.ru> <20080512152430.3720683e@mbook.local> <2117635718.20080513154406@mail.ru> <20080513121452.GA70860@eos.sc1.parodius.com> <20080513154137.GA28842@pix.net> <482A02CD.7040308@mansionfamily.plus.com> <20080514071728.GP64804@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <20080514102410.639f16ef@mbook.local>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--KlAEzMkarCnErv5Q Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2008-May-14 10:24:10 -0400, Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> wrote: >Just out of curiosity - there seems to be an unspoken assumption that >the ports system can only use tools that are part of the base >system. There have been suggestions that the ports/package infrastructure (pkg_* tools, portsnap etc) be unbundled from the base OS. The difficulty comes when you want to upgrade those components. I know, =66rom experience, that portugrading portupgrade or ruby usually fails as the running portupgrade unexpectedly trips over changed bits of itself. > But this is clearly false - the ports system currently >includes a couple of directories full of software that's not in the >base system. There is a directory full of Makefile includes and another directory full of optional tools but pkg_* sits in the base system. What are you alluding to here. >Adding compiled code to those tools would mean that installing the >ports system gets a bit more complex - you have to run "make install" >after extracting the tarball. Is that so bad it's not going to happen? The problem is not the initial install so much as managing packages and upgrades. I see no problem with having the ports/package infrastructure be part of the ports system as long as: a) A user can install/uninstall/audid (and preferably upgrade) packages without needing to compile anything b) The ports system knows how to upgrade itself without tripping over itself in the process. --=20 Peter Jeremy Please excuse any delays as the result of my ISP's inability to implement an MTA that is either RFC2821-compliant or matches their claimed behaviour. --KlAEzMkarCnErv5Q Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkgrQVkACgkQ/opHv/APuIeILACfT2gZ66noHlSlAtFamR+6BW4o vtoAoLzJg88ymeIhmo1yMaQNueiIH/lh =dTjY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --KlAEzMkarCnErv5Q--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080514194529.GB64804>