On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 14:35:00 +0100
Nikola Lečić <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: RIPEMD160
>
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 00:49:05 +0100
> Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In the past we've even talked about how to move all of pkg_* out of
> > src a
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 07:01:15PM +0200, clemens fischer wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:21:10 +1100 Peter Jeremy wrote:
>
> > Note that UFS is a database: If I've understood you correctly, the
> > main problem is that there is no appropriate index to map a port
> > directory to an installed pack
On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:21:10 +1100 Peter Jeremy wrote:
> Note that UFS is a database: If I've understood you correctly, the
> main problem is that there is no appropriate index to map a port
> directory to an installed package name. This could be fixed...
sorry to be late. how about creating a
Ulrich Spoerlein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Some people mentioned license issues with certain ports that would
> disallow the package building: These issues are non-existant if you are
> talking about in-house distribution only. All our jdks are pkg_add(1)ed
> and would love to be upgraded just
Sorry for the late reply, catching up on emails ...
On Thu, 20.03.2008 at 23:32:49 +0100, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> Doug Barton píše v čt 20. 03. 2008 v 13:12 -0700:
> > Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> > > Doug Barton píše v c(t 20. 03. 2008 v 01:05 -0700:
> > >> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008, Michel Talon wrote:
> > >
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 00:49:05 +0100
Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the past we've even talked about how to move all of pkg_* out of
> src and into ports, i.e. the opposite case.
A propos (non-)removing pkg_* into the ports, what d
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 12:48:00PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
>Michel Talon wrote:
>> Since the compilation will take most of the
>> time, it is not relevant to consider performance questions on the
>> portmaster side.
>
>Having spent a substantial amount of time doing performance tuning on
>portmas
Pav Lucistnik wrote:
Kris Kennaway píše v čt 20. 03. 2008 v 23:51 +0100:
A user pointed out to me that on the project ideas page the following
entry remains:
Write a new utility for the pkg_install suite, possibly named
pkg_upgrade(1), implementing a subset of existing portupgrade
functiona
Kris Kennaway píše v čt 20. 03. 2008 v 23:51 +0100:
> > A user pointed out to me that on the project ideas page the following
> > entry remains:
> >
> > Write a new utility for the pkg_install suite, possibly named
> > pkg_upgrade(1), implementing a subset of existing portupgrade
> > functiona
Doug Barton wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
A user pointed out to me that on the project ideas page the following
entry remains:
Write a new utility for the pkg_install suite, possibly named
pkg_upgrade(1), implementing a subset of existing portupgrade
functionali
Doug Barton píše v čt 20. 03. 2008 v 13:12 -0700:
> Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> > Doug Barton píše v c(t 20. 03. 2008 v 01:05 -0700:
> >> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008, Michel Talon wrote:
> >>
> >>> i would venture to say that such an utility
> >>> should be able to upgrade things based of *binary* packages, and
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 01:12:06PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
>
> Fair enough, but can we please come quickly to a consensus on what
> _all_ of the requirements should be? Two things I'd like to avoid. One
> is the feeling that no matter how many hoops I jump through, there is
> always going to be
Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> Doug Barton píe v c(t 20. 03. 2008 v 01:05 -0700:
>> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008, Michel Talon wrote:
>>
>>> i would venture to say that such an utility
>>> should be able to upgrade things based of *binary* packages, and
>>> consequently that portmaster is not a suitable candidate.
Sean C. Farley wrote:
>BTW, I think the +IGNOREME files for portmaster should be
>in /var/db/ports, so they may traverse a manual pkg_delete && make
>install.
I'm ambivalent about that, since the way I personally tend to use
+IGNOREME is to avoid dealing with something till I'm ready t
Sean C. Farley wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008, Doug Barton wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008, Michel Talon wrote:
>>
>>> In my opinion, an example of a correct "pkg_upgrade" type programm
>>> written in C++ is the Debian apt-get. It works predictably, fast,
>>> etc. One of its features, that i consid
David Wolfskill wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 01:05:27AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
>> ...
>>> One of the
>>> requirements of an upgrade system is predictability, this can only
>>> be achieved by using binary packages.
>> You gain a certain amount of flexibility with packages, at the expense of
Michel Talon wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 01:05:27AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008, Michel Talon wrote:
>>
>>> Doug Barton wrote:
>>> i would venture to say that such an utility
>>> should be able to upgrade things based of *binary* packages, and
>>> consequently that portmas
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 01:05:27AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> Now all that said, I'd love to see us move to a much more robust package
> management system, or even just a better interface to the one we have. The
> problem is that I don't have the time to do that as a volunteer project,
> a
Doug Barton píše v čt 20. 03. 2008 v 01:05 -0700:
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008, Michel Talon wrote:
>
> > i would venture to say that such an utility
> > should be able to upgrade things based of *binary* packages, and
> > consequently that portmaster is not a suitable candidate.
>
> That ability is not
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 09:34:38PM +0800, Denise H. G. wrote:
>
> Yes, I've had great impressions by the debian's apt- tools. But it seems
> that the debian package servers maintain an index or something for all
> the packages. And if you want to upgrade or install a certain package,
> you just fe
On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 05:23:23 -0700 David Wolfskill wrote:
> I would prefer to do something similar for ports: build my own
> packages on that machine, then be able to use my preferred port
> management tool to run through the list of installed ports on (say)
> my firewall box, and have it fetch t
On Thu, 20 Mar 2008, Doug Barton wrote:
On Thu, 20 Mar 2008, Michel Talon wrote:
In my opinion, an example of a correct "pkg_upgrade" type programm
written in C++ is the Debian apt-get. It works predictably, fast,
etc. One of its features, that i consider very important for correct
operation,
On Thu, 20 Mar 2008, Michel Talon wrote:
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 05:59:28PM +0800, Denise H. G. wrote:
Michel Talon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Actually I don't think a batch download and install process would
help much, especially for a freshly installed system because it might
be a huge down
Michel Talon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 05:59:28PM +0800, Denise H. G. wrote:
>> Michel Talon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> Actually I don't think a batch download and install process would help
>> much, especially for a freshly installed system because it might be
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 05:59:28PM +0800, Denise H. G. wrote:
> Michel Talon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Actually I don't think a batch download and install process would help
> much, especially for a freshly installed system because it might be a
> huge download job and much waiting time if o
other ports updating tools are of course out of context. They are ports
management tools - not - package management tools.
So please change
http://www.freebsd.org/projects/ideas/index.html#p-ports-upgrade
The project idea is called 'Utility for safe updating of ports in base
system'
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 01:05:27AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> ...
> >One of the
> >requirements of an upgrade system is predictability, this can only
> >be achieved by using binary packages.
>
> You gain a certain amount of flexibility with packages, at the expense of
> being able to customize t
Michel Talon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Doug Barton wrote:
>> So, I renew my inquiry. :) Is portmaster a suitable candidate to fulfill
>> the role of the utility described, and if not, why not?
>
> At the risk of being flamed, i would venture to say that such an utility
> should be able to upg
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 01:05:27AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008, Michel Talon wrote:
>
> >Doug Barton wrote:
> >i would venture to say that such an utility
> >should be able to upgrade things based of *binary* packages, and
> >consequently that portmaster is not a suitable candi
On Thu, 20 Mar 2008, Michel Talon wrote:
Doug Barton wrote:
So, I renew my inquiry. :) Is portmaster a suitable candidate to fulfill
the role of the utility described, and if not, why not?
At the risk of being flamed,
I certainly hope not. :)
i would venture to say that such an utility
sh
Doug Barton wrote:
> So, I renew my inquiry. :) Is portmaster a suitable candidate to fulfill
> the role of the utility described, and if not, why not?
At the risk of being flamed, i would venture to say that such an utility
should be able to upgrade things based of *binary* packages, and
consequ
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
A user pointed out to me that on the project ideas page the following
entry remains:
Write a new utility for the pkg_install suite, possibly named
pkg_upgrade(1), implementing a subset of existing portupgrade
functionality. The required fun
Garrett Cooper u.washington.edu> writes:
> I'm working on combining the pkg_* tools along with the existing
> makefile system with a bourne shell file for my SoC project(*)
>
> As for writing a utility in C, why? Almost everything's there right now
> and just needs to be strung together with s
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 20:43:51 -0700
Garrett Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> RW wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:31:39 -0400
> > Adam Stroud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I was just on the FreeBSD "list of projects and ideas fot
> >> volunteers" page and I was wondering if anyone wa
Robert Backhaus wrote:
On 4/18/07, Adam Stroud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The
current consensus is that portmaster, which is a collection of sh
scripts, should be further developed and eventually committed to the
base system.
The developer of portmaster is one of those who does not really like
RW wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:31:39 -0400
Adam Stroud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I was just on the FreeBSD "list of projects and ideas fot volunteers"
page and I was wondering if anyone was working on the "portupgrade in
C" utility. I would be willing to help (code/document/test) if it's
n
On 4/18/07, Adam Stroud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
All:
I was just on the FreeBSD "list of projects and ideas fot volunteers"
page and I was wondering if anyone was working on the "portupgrade in C"
utility. I would be willing to help (code/document/test) if it's needed.
I think that some pro
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:31:39 -0400
Adam Stroud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was just on the FreeBSD "list of projects and ideas fot volunteers"
> page and I was wondering if anyone was working on the "portupgrade in
> C" utility. I would be willing to help (code/document/test) if it's
> needed
All:
I was just on the FreeBSD "list of projects and ideas fot volunteers"
page and I was wondering if anyone was working on the "portupgrade in C"
utility. I would be willing to help (code/document/test) if it's needed.
A
--
Adam P. Stroud
Intelligent Systems Division
BAE Systems, Advanced I
39 matches
Mail list logo
