[Replies have been pointed to -hackers to get this off of -stable.]
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, The Anarcat
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed:
> On Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 12:17:37AM -0500, Mike Meyer wrote:
> > In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, The Anarcat
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed:
> > > On Tue Apr 23, 2002 at 11:07:18PM -0500, Mike Meyer wrote:
> > > > In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, The Anarcat
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed:
> > > > > The main issues I see about packaging the base system is [1] how plists
> > > > > are to be handled and [2] how configurations files are to be handled.
> > > > You missed the biggie: [3] how the base system install is handled.
> > > The same way the rest of the system is. [3] = [1] + [2]
> > No, it isn't. Ports don't have the requirement to fit on a single
> > floppy.
> The more we move towards packaging the whole system, the more this
> distinction will be blurred, hence [3] = [1] + [2].
Ok, so the biggie is [3] - the ports system needs to handle ports
broken up into floppies.
> > That one's not the problem. The problem is catting together many
> > *floppies* to get a package prior to actually installing it. That's
> > not quite so simple.
> I could see a simple shell script deal with that. I think it is quite
> simple.
Your simple shell script has to prompt for floppies. That needs UI
code. The people who know have decided that the current UI code isn't
up to snuff. Hence libh.
> > > But guess what: libh won't get through if it's not a drop-in
> > > replacement for sysinstall.
> > What makes you say that?
> FUD. Documentation is written for sysinstall and everyone's used to
> it.
Considering that the installation process is the one that generates
the most complaints/suggestions/etc., changing it is certainly a
must. Yes, we'll need new documentation. I believe there are plans to
have them both available for a while. But making it a drop-in would
defeat one of the reasons for rewriting it.
> > > In other words, libh doesn't know about the ports collection or
> > > /usr/src yet, and I don't think it's going to change soon.
> > Yes, but it will change eventually.
> I hope not. I prefer keeping the package management system seperate
> from the source management system.
Wait - source management? What does libh or sysinstall have to do with
source management, beyond installing the source in the first
place. Ideally, you want that to be just another package.
> > And yes, it's going to require rewriting the package format to deal
> > with the issues needed for working on the base system.
> I don't think you have proved that point.
You're right, I haven't. I've been resorting to argument by authority,
which isn't proof. However, I tend to believe the original author of a
software when he says that something needs to be done a specific way
to change that system. If you want to argue with the author, jkh's
address is well-known.
<mike
--
Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
