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 and into
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 package
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 the
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:
i would
-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 do
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
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 candidate.
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 upgrade
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 things. As
The real question is: ports or packages? Please do not mix them together!
If we are talking about ports and ports updating then portmaster is (now) an
excellent candidate for this job and I vote for portmaster.
If we are talking about packages and package management then portmaster and
all
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 one is
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 a
huge
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
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 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 the
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 fetch
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
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,
and
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 portmaster is not a
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 to
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.
That
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 one
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
consequently
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
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 was working on the
Garrett Cooper youshi10 at 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
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.
What
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 projects
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
30 matches
Mail list logo
