Rewrite cvsup & portupgrade in C
Steve Kargl
sgk at troutmask.apl.washington.edu
Wed Jul 7 20:26:42 PDT 2004
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 10:56:17PM -0400, Wesley Morgan wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, Steve Kargl wrote:
>
> >My initial argument does not invlove the language. I don't
> >care about the language. My argument is that neither cvsup
> >nor csup belong in the base system. Both utilities can be
> >installed from ports. If you're going to import csup, then
> >I hope csup goes through a security audit and you define a
> >NO_CSUP make.conf variable.
>
> Does "csup" belong in the tree more, or less than cvs?
csup does not belong in the base system. cvs belongs in
the base syste
> A program that I have used maybe a handful of times because cvsup
> is so much better for my purposes is rebuilt with every make world
> unless you explicitly disable it (which I would argue that most
> people do not).
cvsup is built with every make world?
> It has had security holes and other issues.
And csup won't have any issues?
> Why is this in the base system at all? Simply so developers can make
> commits from a fresh install?
Rhetoric, but correct.
You do realize that you can use cvs to retrieve the FreeBSD sources
via anoncvs. So, cvsup isn't even needed.
> I've seen a lot of things go into the tree over the years, some of which I
> question the need for, but hey I just turn it off in make.conf.
You have to have the make.conf knob to turn it off/on. Note, my request.
> I can't believe how much of a stir this has made. IMO, Bikeshedding
> at its finest.
Some people are quick to pull out the bikeshed word, when they have
nothing to offer to a discussion.
--
Steve
More information about the freebsd-current
mailing list