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 included in the current requirements document, and was > not specifically mentioned the last time we had the discussion on the > list. If the portmgr folks intend that to be a requirement, the current > ideas list entry should be amended.
Yes, I think ability to work with packages on a remote FTP site with no
local /usr/ports, solely relying on an INDEX file, is a solid "must
have" requirement. I have added that to the entry in the Ideas page.
At the same time, ability to work on a local /usr/ports _without_ INDEX
file is also a requirement.
I think we should be pushing our packages and package-only modes of
operation to the mainstream users. Especially now when we can afford to
build a complete package set for all existing platforms/architectures on
a 48-hour cycle basis.
There should also be an overhaul of current ftp mirrors infrastructure,
which might not be able to sustain the constant flow of new packages.
Moving over from ftp to http would also eliminate a lot of the latency
issues as mentioned elsewhere in this thread.
--
Pav Lucistnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Your sig line (k) was stolen! -more- There is a puff of smoke!
signature.asc
Description: Toto je digitálně podepsaná část zprávy
