Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> While I agree there should be some automatic way to get rid
> of old cruft (or at least to list it), I do not think that it
> should be part of installworld or installkernel. All that
> any such step can do is find things which "it does not expect"
> to be there, but it would have no way of knowing *why* the
> file is there. Maybe it's stale, *or* maybe someone build the
> port and explicitly pointed it at /usr instead of /usr/local.
So, to summarize:
o People with old cruft may have working -current systems
that should not be working, but they can't see the
problems because they have files that would not be
there if they had done a fresh install.
o People with old cruft may be reporting broken -current
experiences (e.g. like some of the libc_r breakage
recently), when *their personal system* is what is
broken, because they have files that would not be
there if they had done a fresh install.
o Making "make install" remove "everything which is not
-current" is a bad idea, because it could surprise
people by moving them from the first category --
"should not be working" -- into the "not working"
category.
Just to play devil's advocate...
Aren't the people who would be "surprised" in this case using
-current in a way it is not intended to be used?
Specifically, isn't -current there *solely* for testing, and
not production work, and therefore shouldn't the *primary*
purpose of -current -- testing for breakage in -current -- be
the first and foremost result of running -current?
--
I think that there are two contradictory assumptions in this
dicussion... either you want -current to work because it's
good code, or you want -current to "just work", and you don't
care if that doesn't mean that you can't build an identical,
working system from the code in the source repository.
Paul: I think the flaw in your idea is that when the source
code goes from a working to a non-working condition, there
would be no going back to correct the problem, short of a
full reinstall or an emergency recovery disk.
Others: I think the flaw in your idea is that you aren't
really running -current, so why the heck aren't you just
running -stable, instead of pretending to run -current?
I think it comes down to this: Everyone is interested in
having the most people possible running -current. Paul wants
to attract new people, and Sheldon wants to not scare away
old people.
So back to my original suggestion (to Paul) of compromise:
| I guess the best way for you to argue for this outcome is for
| you to do the bsd.*.mk modifications to support your idea, and
| to do all the Makfile modifications to provide the targets,
| and to have it "off by default".
E.g. with a "make installpristine" or some other target.
-- Terry
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
