Andrea Campi wrote: > On Fri, Dec 30, 2005 at 01:14:32PM -0800, Darren Pilgrim wrote: > >>From: Andrea Campi >> >>>Well, try using sudo (portupgrade -s) to install sudo... ;-) >>>All goes well until portupgrade deinstalls the old version, >>>then tries to use sudo to "make install" sudo ;-) >> >>Have you ever tried using portupgrade to upgrade portupgrade? Someone >>should fix portupgrade so it can still be used after deinstalling itself. >>;-) > > > Right, that's the other half of the issue ;-) > > We could just ship portupgrade in the base system... > > /me ducks and runs > > bye, > Andrea > I know that you are joking, but I'd like to nip this in the bud before others try to take you seriously. I think that portupgrade is an excellent tool, but making it part of the base system means making Ruby part of the base system. Once we do that then we are back with the same problem that we had with Perl. Who maintains it? Which do we import, Ruby 1.6 or 1.8? What happens when 1.8 becomes obsolete and users want to install something newer? We struggled with this with Perl, and we frankly are better off learning the lesson there. Now, if portupgrade were written in C or even C++, it would be a no-brainer to import. Not that I like/dislike Ruby, it's just a quickly moving target due to its immaturity, just like Python and Eiffel and all those other hip new languages are. ScottReceived on Fri Dec 30 2005 - 23:00:37 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:50 UTC