On 31 August 2012 16:47, Tijl Coosemans <t...@coosemans.org> wrote: > On 31-08-2012 14:22, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 08:10:50AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: >>> On Friday, August 31, 2012 5:59:10 am Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >>>> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 01:02:06PM -1000, Doug Barton wrote: >>>>> I agree with John on all counts here. Further, the idea of a >>>>> self-installing package, at least for the pkg stuff itself, addresses >>>>> the issue that someone else brought up about how to handle installation >>>>> of pkg by the installer for a new system. >>>> >>>> I like the idea of also providing a self-installing package, and it seems >>>> really >>>> easy to do, so I'll try to see what I can do in this area I'll wrote a PoC >>>> in 5 >>>> minutes which looks pretty good, this could also be a very simple and easy >>>> way >>>> to integrate into bsdinstaller. >>>> >>>> I'll do work in that direction. >>>> >>>> Still it doesn't solve the problem of boostrapping pkgng in a fresh new >>>> box, >>>> because the user may not know where to download the pkg-setup.sh. >>> >>> I do think that is something bsdinstall should be able to handle, and I >>> would >>> certainly want bsdinstall to include a dialog that says "do you want to >>> install >>> the package manager?" >> >> Of course this is being worked on by dteske@ on his bsdconfig scripts, so >> yes in >> anycase the bsdinstaller will end up with a boostrap dialog to install pkgng. > > ...using a mechanism that will be supported for the lifetime of the release. > > My concern is that the problem with the pkg tools was never that they were > tied to FreeBSD releases. If that were true then you cannot accept the > bootstrap solution above because it has exactly the same "problems". > > The problem in my opinion was simply that the source code lived in src where > ports developers didn't have good access to it. And the solution for that is > to turn pkg development into a third party project and import that into base > from time to time. There can also be a port for it so people can use more > recent versions if they want to. That's the situation for several third > party tools in base. > > Given that the ports tree is currently supporting both the old and new pkg > tools I don't think it would be a problem for them to support older versions > of pkgng when the time comes, especially since the database used by pkgng is > much more flexible and you can execute any sql query on it.
Absolutely not. This is close to the top reason pkg has been moved to ports-- it should not be in base, because then we're stuck with supporting that version for a very long time. Chris _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
