On Thu, 15 May 2008 05:45:29 +1000 Peter Jeremy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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. Having the ports system depend on packages that are maintained via the ports system does make things fairly complex. On the other hand, unbundling can be done. OS X has N (for some N > 1) ports systems that run outside the base system. Notably, they don't treat the code for manipulating the ports system as a port, and provide distinct commands for updating an installed port, the ports, and the port system software. However, I don't know that that's necessary for what I asked. > > 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. I was thinking of those two directories. I wasn't thinking about the pkg_* tools, because I pretty much never use them. > >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. You could do what I suggested by adding the desired db library to /usr/src/usr.sbin/pkg_install, and linking it statically into the pkg* tools? Yeah, it's not really pretty, but is it any worse than having a BDB in the base system that we recommend be avoided? <mike -- Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.mired.org/consulting.html Independent Network/Unix/Perforce consultant, email for more information. O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
