On Sep 1, 2012, at 12:40 PM, Matthew Seaman wrote:

> On 01/09/2012 18:43, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
>> In this scenario the ports tree needs to keep support for older releases,
>> but that's a consequence of the fact that there's only one ports tree for
>> all releases. Somewhere in between the ports and the various releases there
>> has to be some form encapsulation, not just for pkg, but for all the tools
>> used by the ports tree. Given how the ports tree currently encapsulates
>> both the old and new pkg tools I don't see how supporting multiple versions
>> of pkgng would be a problem because presumably the difference between pkgng
>> versions is going to be much smaller than the difference between the old
>> and new tools.
> New functionality already in the process of development will entail
> making non-backwards compatible changes to the DB schema.  If we're tied
> to supporting a version of pkgng bundled with a release, that's going to
> make rolling out such changes much harder.  On the other hand, if pkgng
> is in ports, then we can release a new version and simultaneously
> publish new package sets (incorporating the update to pkgng) from the
> repositories which will have been built using the updated DB schema.

Will new versions of pkgng support old packages?

Some folks maintain their own package repositories and
will get rather grumpy if an update to pkgng requires them
to rebuild their entire repository.


freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Reply via email to