Hi,
As part of taking a look at the differences in our implementation
of pkg_install(1) in order to afford an improvement over the existing
code, I've looked at various implementations of pkg_install, one being
NetBSD's evolution [1]. It's several years ahead from our's and while
I don't believ
On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 11:14 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> Hi,
> As part of taking a look at the differences in our implementation
> of pkg_install(1) in order to afford an improvement over the existing
> code, I've looked at various implementations of pkg_install, one being
> NetBSD's evolution
Am 28.03.2010, 08:14 Uhr, schrieb Garrett Cooper:
Hi,
As part of taking a look at the differences in our implementation
of pkg_install(1) in order to afford an improvement over the existing
code, I've looked at various implementations of pkg_install, one being
NetBSD's evolution [1]. It's se
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Matthias Andree wrote:
> Am 28.03.2010, 08:14 Uhr, schrieb Garrett Cooper:
>
>> Hi,
>> As part of taking a look at the differences in our implementation
>> of pkg_install(1) in order to afford an improvement over the existing
>> code, I've looked at various impl
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 2:10 AM, Florent Thoumie wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Matthias Andree
> wrote:
>> Am 28.03.2010, 08:14 Uhr, schrieb Garrett Cooper:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>> As part of taking a look at the differences in our implementation
>>> of pkg_install(1) in order to afford an
Garrett Cooper wrote on 2010-03-29:
WRT variables, I'm not so concerned about %D %F etc, but I am concerned
about the necessity to add script boilerplate (such as snatching
pre-post or
deinstall-install modes, prefix), and while I haven't thoroughly
audited the
install scripts in ports, I
Hi Matthias,
Just to clear things up a bit, pkg_install (which lives under
.../src/usr.sbin/pkg_install) is a suite of tools consisting of
pkg_{add,create,delete,info,version}.
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 3:35 AM, Matthias Andree wrote:
> Garrett Cooper wrote on 2010-03-29:
>
[...]
>> It's real
Quoting Florent Thoumie (from Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:10:54 +):
I mentioned getting rid of those pesky @*exec lines a few years ago,
but this was met by quite a lot of objection.
I still think it would be a good change, assuming that we provide
equivalent (or better) features:
- Configuration
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Alexander Leidinger
wrote:
> Quoting Florent Thoumie (from Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:10:54
> +):
>
>> I mentioned getting rid of those pesky @*exec lines a few years ago,
>> but this was met by quite a lot of objection.
>>
>> I still think it would be a good change
Quoting Florent Thoumie (from Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:00:53 +):
It could serve as a proof of concept and would
show more clearly what you have in mind. Done nicely, it also allows to keep
a lot of the stuff in the Makefile and only write such scripts by hand if
absolutely necessary (think about
10 matches
Mail list logo
