tech-pkg archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: pkg_install in base system again

On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 02:38:06AM +0100, Thomas Klausner wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 06, 2011 at 08:56:18PM +0100, Alistair Crooks wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 06, 2011 at 08:47:24PM +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> > > The fact remains that keeping it in base has proven time and time again
> > > to create *more* issues for NetBSD users.
> > 
> > For it to be a fact, I think you have to be able to prove it. Proving
> > something which isn't true is a tad difficult. Possibly we can cons 
> > something
> > up with a zero division, but there's maybe someone who would notice that.
> Just look at
>     if test `${PKG_ADMIN} -V` -lt 20090528; then \
>         echo outdated; \
>     else \
> ...
> We need(ed) this code because we couldn't just assume the pkg tools
> are new enough, because NetBSD includes them. If they were installed
> from pkgsrc by default, the infrastructure could have just depended on
> a new enough pkg_install package instead.
> And you must know that this is only one, not the only one, example.

Actually, this is taken from the existing check that I added to in around 1998 or so, to check that the tools we were using
are able to deal with the packaging info we're about to give to them. 
I was quite proud of that code.  But this bears no relation to the
"pkg_install should be in pkgsrc, not src" discussion - it relates to
checking whether the tools we've got are functional enough, regardless
of where they come from.

Now I actually believe that the pkg_install tools should be in pkgsrc,
for all platforms. I also believe we should be doing "new enough" checks
to see that we're not going to barf when we're in mid-addition/deletion
or info stage. The two issues are orthogonal, and conflating them does
not help.
> > I'm not convinced that pkg_setup is the right way to go. I have a number
> > of versions of NetBSD-current sitting around. Who will provide the binary
> > package for those (always assuming that we've been convinced that it's
> > the right thing to do?).
> The same person or bulk build who will provide the binary packages.
> Or the person compiling them from source, if they will be compiled from 
> source.

My point is that I can choose any point in time to use a snapshot of
-current to build a system around. That is neither here nor there, as
far as pkgsrc is concerned. But who will build a pkg_install for me in
pkgsrc for me to download a binary package? And how can I be convinced of
the provenance of that binary?

Well, no-one can convince me, and no-one is going to step up and build
those binary packages, so please think of another way to do this that
doesn't mean that I am beholden to someone else to enable my use of

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index