cvs commit: ports/emulators/linux_base-fc4 Makefile
ports/emulators/linux_dist-gentoo-stage1 Makefile ports/emu
Alexander at Leidinger.net
Fri Oct 6 08:26:59 PDT 2006
Quoting Kris Kennaway <kris at obsecurity.org> (from Thu, 5 Oct 2006
> On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 10:10:21PM +0400, Boris Samorodov wrote:
>> On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 13:40:20 -0400 Kris Kennaway wrote:
>> > On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 08:11:01PM +0400, Boris Samorodov wrote:
>> > > On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 19:49:53 +0400 Andrew Pantyukhin wrote:
>> > > > On 10/5/06, Boris Samorodov <bsam at freebsd.org> wrote:
>> > > > > bsam 2006-10-05 15:32:10 UTC
>> > > > >
>> > > > > FreeBSD ports repository
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Modified files:
>> > > > > emulators/linux_base-fc4 Makefile
>> > > > > emulators/linux_base-suse-9.1 Makefile
>> > > > > emulators/linux_base-suse-9.2 Makefile
>> > > > > emulators/linux_base-suse-9.3 Makefile
>> > > > > emulators/linux_dist-gentoo-stage1 Makefile
>> > > > > emulators/linux_dist-gentoo-stage2 Makefile
>> > > > > emulators/linux_dist-gentoo-stage3 Makefile
>> > > > > x11/linux-XFree86-libs Makefile
>> > > > > Log:
>> > > > > Remove deleted linux_base-* and linux_locale* ports from
>> CONFLICTS variable
>> > > > > of the remaining linux ports.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Reviewed by: netchild (agreed in principle)
>> > >
>> > > > IMHO, you really shouldn't do that. People with old packages
>> > > > installed should not worry about trying out new ports. Now you've
>> > > > opened a way for their systems to be messed up.
>> > >
>> > > Well, we are speaking about already deleted ports. Once they were
>> > > deleted and user's ports tree updated any adding/removing should be
>> > > done according to /usr/ports/UPDATING (i.e. reading about default
>> > > linux_base port and how to upgrade).
>> > >
>> > > Once a user uses fixed ports tree and pre-built packages there should
>> > > be no problems.
>> > I agree with Andrew; there should at least be a window where you keep
>> > the CONFLICTS around to give users time to upgrade without installing
>> > conflicting packages that mess up their system.
>> OK, you convinced me. How long should this period be?
> At least a month, probably.
From when on? From the time we told the people to switch to the
replacement in UPDATING (affects the x11-libs port)? Or from the date
when the deleted ports where marked as deprecated, broken or forbidden
(I don't lookup which one of the deleted ones was marked how, but
AFAIR all of the 3 markups where used)? Or from the date where those
ports got removed?
Beware, there may be pitfalls in the questions above. ;-)
What about ports which may conflict with a removed port but get added
just after the removal? It doesn't contain the CONFLICTS entry and
probably will never see it while still being in conflict.
This one month grace time also doesn't solve the problem for those
people which just have a look at a system when there's something
Based upon my experience in the last years I have to say this one
month buys nothing. Either they care about a system (then they don't
need this one month grace period), or they don't care about a system
(then even a year may not be enough... I know about systems which get
updated from 4.x to 6.x and update to ports only happen if a new ports
needs to be installed and it depends upon something which needs to be
updated to build/run the important port).
It's like transporting water in a bucket with some tiny holes in the
bottom, if you don't need long to transport it from A to B, you will
get enough water to B, but the longer you need, the less will be there.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
-- John Kenneth Galbraith
http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7
http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID = 72077137
More information about the cvs-all