On 2008-May-14 10:24:10 -0400, Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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, from 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. -- 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.
pgpjJr6pyWxu1.pgp
Description: PGP signature
