BDB corrupt

[Peter Jeremy]

On 2008-May-14 10:24:10 -0400, Mike Meyer <mwm at mired.org> wrote:
>Just out of curiosity - there seems to be an unspoken assumption that
>the ports system can only use tools that are part of the base
>system.

There have been suggestions that the ports/package infrastructure
(pkg_* tools, portsnap etc) be unbundled from the base OS.  The
difficulty comes when you want to upgrade those components.  I know,
from experience, that portugrading portupgrade or ruby usually fails
as the running portupgrade unexpectedly trips over changed bits of
itself.

> But this is clearly false - the ports system currently
>includes a couple of directories full of software that's not in the
>base system.

There is a directory full of Makefile includes and another directory
full of optional tools but pkg_* sits in the base system.  What are
you alluding to here.

>Adding compiled code to those tools would mean that installing the
>ports system gets a bit more complex - you have to run "make install"
>after extracting the tarball. Is that so bad it's not going to happen?

The problem is not the initial install so much as managing packages
and upgrades.  I see no problem with having the ports/package
infrastructure be part of the ports system as long as:
a) A user can install/uninstall/audid (and preferably upgrade)
   packages without needing to compile anything
b) The ports system knows how to upgrade itself without tripping over
   itself in the process.

-- 
Peter Jeremy
Please excuse any delays as the result of my ISP's inability to implement
an MTA that is either RFC2821-compliant or matches their claimed behaviour.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers/attachments/20080514/07bdc4f1/attachment.pgp