-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Hubert Feyrer wrote:

>On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Joachim König-Baltes wrote:
>> But the user can also use the wrong script. I would prefer to set a variable
>> in each of the packages (Makefile, +CONTENTS) marking it as "sys" or "pkgsrc"
>> package and pkg_add etc. could figure out which PKG_DBDIR to take, if not
>> told otherwise via command line.
>
>I guess that'd make sense, to prevent user errors.
>
>Maybe just encode a "@pkgtype foo" (foo == nothing or "pkg", "syspkg",
>"patch") into the pkg's +CONTENTS file (shouldn't be too hard), then
>remand that pkg_add has a switch that says "only install this pkg if it's
>of kind foo.
>
>Jim, is something like this planned?

Yes, with one caveat:  It's not clear to me that a `patch' should be
registered as such in a syspkg-aware world.  In a syspkg-aware world,
every system pkg has a `minor revision' which is distinct from the os
revision.

Thus, the version of named(8) which ships with NetBSD 1.6.1 will be
base-bind-bin-1.6.1.0.  If an SA is released for bind, and a new version
made available on the branch, that will be base-bind-bin-1.6.1.1.

If the user deinstalls base-bind-bin-1.6.1.0 and installs
base-bind-bin-1.6.1.1, they will be running +just+ the 1.6.1.1 version.
Likewise, if we provide a patch to address the issue, installing it
should upgrade their installed bind to 1.6.1.1, not be registered
separately.

To date, I have looked into adding a +SYSPKG file to system packages,
which would contain set information as well.  I'm just as happy with a
@pkgtype field, though, if people feel that's a cleaner solution.

(the advantage of +SYSPKG is that it can be checked by listing the
contents of a binary package without unpacking anything.

- -- 
				Jim Wise
				jwise@draga.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (NetBSD)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE8TYHBN71lEcOYcw4RAoGiAKCZnflL9opG4n51aQshCAfW7hPc3ACcCLSj
8AP0xqLFsUxUgZlCu3tRj+A=
=q7WM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----