Re: Rewrite cvsup & portupgrade in C

On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 10:56:17PM -0400, Wesley Morgan wrote:
> 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?

csup does not belong in the base system.  cvs belongs in
the base syste


> 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).

cvsup is built with every make world?

> It has had security holes and other issues.

And csup won't have any issues?

> Why is this in the base system at all?  Simply so developers can make
> commits from a fresh install?

Rhetoric, but correct.

You do realize that you can use cvs to retrieve the FreeBSD sources
via anoncvs.  So, cvsup isn't even needed.

> 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.

You have to have the make.conf knob to turn it off/on.  Note, my request.

> I can't believe how much of a stir this has made.  IMO, Bikeshedding
> at its finest.

Some people are quick to pull out the bikeshed word, when they have
nothing to offer to a discussion.

-- 
Steve