Ports management tools in the base (Was: Re: cvs commit: www/en/projects/ideas ideas.xml)

[Alexander Leidinger]

Quoting Doug Barton <dougb at FreeBSD.org> (from Tue, 20 Mar 2007  
15:47:25 -0700):

> Alexander Leidinger wrote:
>> Quoting Rene Ladan <r.c.ladan at gmail.com> (Tue, 20 Mar 2007 21:20:18 +0100):

>>> Not having a /usr/local/lib/compat/pkg is cleaner IMO.
>>
>> It requires you to have all software up-to-date after a library version
>> bump. This is not always desired.
>
> Can you explain in more detail when and why that might be the case?
> What I'm trying to figure out is where the 80/20 line is here.

When you need a program which needs a newer lib than installed on a  
production system, but you don't get a maintenance window to update  
all other programs which use this lib, then not having the old lib  
will hurt.

When the reason for the library version bump also requires to change  
some parts in the source of the programs which make use of the lib,  
you have to update all programs at once. If some programs have bugs in  
more recent versions which you can't accept in production and when you  
need to install a program which needs the new lib version, you are  
busted when you don't have the old lib around.

In the same scenario as in the previous paragraph you also depend upon  
the release cycle of all involved applications. So if not all programs  
are available in a compatible version, you are busted too.

For some libs having old libs is a nightmare (gettext comes to mind,  
and every other lib which is used in a lot of other libs and  
programs), but in general it is a good thing to have the possibility  
to decide on your own if you want to update everything or only a  
specific subset.

Bye,
Alexander.

-- 
Q:	How many college football players does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
A:	Only one, but he gets three credits for it.

http://www.Leidinger.net    Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7
http://www.FreeBSD.org       netchild @ FreeBSD.org  : PGP ID = 72077137