Re: Rewrite cvsup & portupgrade in C

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, Steve Kargl wrote:

> My initial argument does not invlove the language.  I don't
> care about the language.  My argument is that neither cvsup
> nor csup belong in the base system.  Both utilities can be
> installed from ports.  If you're going to import csup, then
> I hope csup goes through a security audit and you define a
> NO_CSUP make.conf variable.

Does "csup" belong in the tree more, or less than cvs? A program that I 
have used maybe a handful of times because cvsup is so much better for my 
purposes is rebuilt with every make world unless you explicitly disable it 
(which I would argue that most people do not). It has had security holes 
and other issues. Why is this in the base system at all? Simply so 
developers can make commits from a fresh install? I can imagine a similar 
argument to this one taking place when cvs was imported. I do know that I 
rarely bother upgrading cvsup because of the trouble it gave me. Binaries 
were never available for 5.0-current. I don't even bother to use the port, 
instead I just copy around an old binary that still works for me. It's 
always been a pain to GET cvsup.

I've seen a lot of things go into the tree over the years, some of which I 
question the need for, but hey I just turn it off in make.conf. I can't 
believe how much of a stir this has made. IMO, Bikeshedding at its finest.


WNM