[PC-BSD Testing] ports tree auto-update
A-Koziol at neiu.edu
Wed Dec 14 16:41:22 PST 2011
On 12/14/2011 5:33 PM, Tigersharke . wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Sean Cavanaugh
> <Millenia2000 at hotmail.com <mailto:Millenia2000 at hotmail.com>> wrote:
> ‘Portsnap fetch extract’ ??
> *From:* testing-bounces at lists.pcbsd.org
> <mailto:testing-bounces at lists.pcbsd.org>
> [mailto:testing-bounces at lists.pcbsd.org
> <mailto:testing-bounces at lists.pcbsd.org>] *On Behalf Of *Tigersharke .
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 14, 2011 4:42 PM
> *To:* PC-BSD Testing list
> *Subject:* [PC-BSD Testing] ports tree auto-update
> A conversation on IRC lead to this thought..
> Currently when a new system is installed, the ports tree (and
> source) are pulled from the install media, and it is unpacked from
> a tarball.
> What I propose, is that the above happens as usual, however:
> (contingent upon network/repo access)
> * at first boot or first login, the system updater does a
> check on the ports tree and updates it (*if* the ports tree
> was added during install).
> * could system source be 'sketched in' and then obtained at
> first boot/login?
> With this arrangement, the ports tree is not stale and its
> freshness is not so tied to the release date of the media. Things
> like EasyPBI (especially once it is available as a PBI itself)
> will then be able to work on the latest ports.
> Thanks for your time and interest!
> Of course portsnap fetch extract (and/or update) would work.
> However, an assumption with PC-BSD is ease-of-use and general
> automation of tasks. I was not necessarily suggesting any sort of
> continual update process, though that could be done. What I meant was
> that at the least, the first login to a fresh install of PC-BSD, would
> have the most up-to-date ports tree. It may actually use portsnap
> behind the scenes to accomplish this.
> The reasoning was the expectation by the average user that everything
> is/would be current right after install. Many of us are very well
> aware that there is a flood of updates due to freezes around release
> time. Additionally, I foresee an increased use of things such as
> EasyPBI, which necessarily would work best with an up-to-date ports tree.
> Actually, now that I've spent more time thinking about it.. it makes a
> lot of sense for those who choose to install the ports tree, that it
> auto updated on a reasonably regular basis. This is only the tree
> framework, and not an update of installed ports in which case there
> could be issues (as reported in /usr/ports/UPDATING).
Well, I know there are some on this list who are still stuck on dial-up
for whatever reason and for an automatic ports fetch to run without
asking would suck what little bandwidth they had. They'd be wondering
why the connection was so slow not knowing that a background task
pulling ports tree is running. If such a thing were ever implemented, a
simple dialogue box asking "Hey, do you want to download the latest
ports tree right now?" Doing it without asking is probably not the best
approach for those situations I just described. I don't think some kind
of thing that can be scheduled (daily, weekly, monthly, etc.) to
automate the fetch is such a bad idea. It seems like a natural evolution
to me but it should have user control over schedule and settings to turn
it on or off.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Testing