Subject: Re: making 'make replace' safer
To: Greg Troxel <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Peter Schuller <email@example.com>
Date: 07/16/2006 23:06:03
> I have to admit I am leaning towards possibly re-implementing
> pkgmanager in some other language, mostly due to get support for
> threads, better portability and better POSIX integration.
> The pkg_rolling-replace code is in /bin/sh and awk.
Ok. Going that far is not suitable for me because I want pkgmanager to do a
lot of things that isn't easily implemented in a sane way with shell scripts.
But with the base system requirement, C remains an option. Will give it some
thought, although I don't personally have any problem with a tool depending
on packages that are (after all) available in pkgsrc.
> Ruby isn't part of the base system, so there's an issue there. If
> there's a small package that runs ruby, and it doesn't have 5 versions
> like python, and isn't constantly changing, then it might be ok for some.
I have never run into version hell with Ruby so far (other than "requires
version 1.8 or newer"), though I magine Ruby 2.0 will create some
> If C is an absolute requirement for a tool to be generally accepted
> - would the use of boehm-gc kill off that advantage? Opinions?
> boehm-gc means going beyond the base system, but if there's a binary
> (esp if static) that can then be used, that's not so bad. For
> programs like we're talking about, the operations in question don't
> really seem that hard that features like garbage collection seem
It's mostly personal preference. I don't like having to spend time working
around the limitations of the language, even if the problem is not
significant enough that it poses a real problem.
> I should point out that another difference with the rolling-replace
> approach is that the pkgsrc code itself is modified to have make
> replace do the unsafe marking, so that the metadata is accurate
> always, rather than only when using a tool. But, pkgmanager could
> certainly use the same tags - that's an orthogonal issue.
pkgmanager currently does not maintain any kind of internal state between
runs, and is only dependent on the state of the system (and I very much agree
this is a desired feature, there is nothing worse than some package manager
getting permanently confused and disabling the whole system).
Well, interesting feedback - thanks! I will give it some more thought, but I
am scepticle to the basesystem-only requirement.
/ Peter Schuller, InfiDyne Technologies HB
PGP userID: 0xE9758B7D or 'Peter Schuller <firstname.lastname@example.org>'
Key retrieval: Send an E-Mail to email@example.com
E-Mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Web: http://www.scode.org