Re: Call for comments - pkg_trans

2008-10-27 Thread martinko
Miroslav Lachman wrote: Doug Barton wrote: Norberto Meijome wrote: [...] And since we are just wishing for things, It'd be nice to have an opportunity to back off from a install/remove after calculating dependencies, such as that provided by yum (it shows everything it will do and asks for

Re: Call for comments - pkg_trans

2008-08-03 Thread Norberto Meijome
On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 16:59:03 + (UTC) Marcin Wisnicki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Though it would be usefull to have a full log of package operations in machine and human readable format for review/auditing and similar purposes. ah. nice thought. something that kicks in when /var/db/pkg/* is

Re: Call for comments - pkg_trans

2008-08-02 Thread Norberto Meijome
On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 17:27:40 +0200 Ivan Voras [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (Apologies for the mini top-post, and the confusing quotingis there a mailer that will actually quote properly ? :P ) ) BTW, I thought of another problem scenario. The user installs port M, and it brings dependencies

Re: Call for comments - pkg_trans

2008-08-02 Thread Norberto Meijome
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 23:59:12 -0700 Doug Barton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Norberto Meijome wrote: On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 23:38:21 +0200 Ivan Voras [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] As a matter of fact, i don't really see why we need a transaction system to have an option to {pkg management

Re: Call for comments - pkg_trans

2008-08-01 Thread Doug Barton
Norberto Meijome wrote: On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 23:38:21 +0200 Ivan Voras [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BTW, I thought of another problem scenario. The user installs port M, and it brings dependencies D1, D2, and D3. Then the user installs port N which also has port D2 as a dependency. Port N then

Re: Call for comments - pkg_trans

2008-08-01 Thread Miroslav Lachman
Doug Barton wrote: Norberto Meijome wrote: [...] And since we are just wishing for things, It'd be nice to have an opportunity to back off from a install/remove after calculating dependencies, such as that provided by yum (it shows everything it will do and asks for confirmation before

Re: Call for comments - pkg_trans

2008-08-01 Thread kimelto
Hi, On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 12:04 AM, Marcin Wisnicki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Looking at your use cases I think what you are proposing is overkill. * Install some large group of packages, like KDE or GNOME. Don't like it, want to delete all packages installed during the operation. This

Re: Call for comments - pkg_trans

2008-08-01 Thread Ivan Voras
Norberto Meijome wrote: On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 23:38:21 +0200 Ivan Voras [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BTW, I thought of another problem scenario. The user installs port M, and it brings dependencies D1, D2, and D3. Then the user installs port N which also has port D2 as a dependency. Port N then

Re: Call for comments - pkg_trans

2008-08-01 Thread Ivan Voras
Doug Barton wrote: Ivan Voras wrote: 2008/7/31 Doug Barton [EMAIL PROTECTED]: As I'm sure you can imagine, I would not regard any solution that says portupgrade is mandatory very favorably, and I don't think I'd be alone there. What you need to be doing here is to define the API so that

Re: Call for comments - pkg_trans

2008-08-01 Thread Ivan Voras
Marcin Wisnicki wrote: On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 06:25:27 +0200, Ivan Voras wrote: Hi, I apologize in advance if what I'm trying to do seems stupid or it has already existed since the Dawn of Time (i.e. when McKusick was in diapers) but I'd like your comments on this idea:

Re: Call for comments - pkg_trans

2008-08-01 Thread Marcin Wisnicki
On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 17:33:43 +0200, Ivan Voras wrote: Marcin Wisnicki wrote: On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 06:25:27 +0200, Ivan Voras wrote: It will install gnome2 along with it's dependencies but in some way mark gnome2 package as installed by user, say, by creating /var/db/pkg/

Re: Call for comments - pkg_trans

2008-08-01 Thread Marcin Wisnicki
On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 16:51:02 +, Marcin Wisnicki wrote: On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 17:33:43 +0200, Ivan Voras wrote: Marcin Wisnicki wrote: On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 06:25:27 +0200, Ivan Voras wrote: It will install gnome2 along with it's dependencies but in some way mark gnome2 package as

Re: Call for comments - pkg_trans

2008-07-31 Thread Jeremy Chadwick
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 06:25:27AM +0200, Ivan Voras wrote: Hi, I apologize in advance if what I'm trying to do seems stupid or it has already existed since the Dawn of Time (i.e. when McKusick was in diapers) but I'd like your comments on this idea:

Re: Call for comments - pkg_trans

2008-07-31 Thread Ivan Voras
Jeremy Chadwick wrote: On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 06:25:27AM +0200, Ivan Voras wrote: Hi, I apologize in advance if what I'm trying to do seems stupid or it has already existed since the Dawn of Time (i.e. when McKusick was in diapers) but I'd like your comments on this idea:

Re: Call for comments - pkg_trans

2008-07-31 Thread Ivan Voras
Doug Barton wrote: You have some very interesting ideas there. Not that I want to dissuade you in any way from doing this, but I would like to point out that portmaster already does some of what you're suggesting and it could fairly easily be modified to do just about all the rest of it. The

Re: Call for comments - pkg_trans

2008-07-31 Thread Miroslav Lachman
Ivan Voras wrote: Doug Barton wrote: You have some very interesting ideas there. Not that I want to dissuade you in any way from doing this, but I would like to point out that portmaster already does some of what you're suggesting and it could fairly easily be modified to do just about all

Re: Call for comments - pkg_trans

2008-07-31 Thread Michel Talon
Ivan Voras wrote: I apologize in advance if what I'm trying to do seems stupid or it has=20 already existed since the Dawn of Time (i.e. when McKusick was in=20 diapers) but I'd like your comments on this idea: http://wiki.freebsd.org/IvanVoras/PkgTransProposal I can write the

Re: Call for comments - pkg_trans

2008-07-31 Thread Doug Barton
Ivan Voras wrote: Doug Barton wrote: You have some very interesting ideas there. Not that I want to dissuade you in any way from doing this, but I would like to point out that portmaster already does some of what you're suggesting and it could fairly easily be modified to do just about all

Re: Call for comments - pkg_trans

2008-07-31 Thread Michel Talon
Doug Barton wrote: BTW, I thought of another problem scenario. The user installs port M, and it brings dependencies D1, D2, and D3. Then the user installs port N which also has port D2 as a dependency. Then D2 becomes available for deletion only after M and N have been deleted or no more

Re: Call for comments - pkg_trans

2008-07-31 Thread Marcin Wisnicki
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 06:25:27 +0200, Ivan Voras wrote: Hi, I apologize in advance if what I'm trying to do seems stupid or it has already existed since the Dawn of Time (i.e. when McKusick was in diapers) but I'd like your comments on this idea:

Re: Call for comments - pkg_trans

2008-07-31 Thread Norberto Meijome
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 23:38:21 +0200 Ivan Voras [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BTW, I thought of another problem scenario. The user installs port M, and it brings dependencies D1, D2, and D3. Then the user installs port N which also has port D2 as a dependency. Port N then won't install D2 as

Re: Call for comments - pkg_trans

2008-07-30 Thread Doug Barton
Ivan Voras wrote: Hi, I apologize in advance if what I'm trying to do seems stupid or it has already existed since the Dawn of Time (i.e. when McKusick was in diapers) but I'd like your comments on this idea: http://wiki.freebsd.org/IvanVoras/PkgTransProposal I can write the pkg_trans