Re: [Openbsdbinpatch-misc] Patch for /var/db/binpatch stuff

[<ger...@gm...>]

2007/1/16, Mike Erdely <mi...@er...>:
> Mike Erdely wrote:
> > Gerardo Santana G=F3mez Garrido wrote:
> >> If we make a difference between a build server (binpatch framework)
> >> and patch tools (patch_*) I think the later should handle
> >> /var/db/binpatch.
> >
> > Unless you want to keep it simple and have the binpatch "tools" be opti=
onal.  If
> > you have all of the components in the tarball, it doesn't matter whethe=
r you use
> > patch_add or tar, the result should be the same.
>
> No comments about this?  I think the goal should be to keep binpatch simp=
le.  As
> an example, if someone were to write a front-end to PF, you'd still want =
to be
> able to "vi /etc/pf.conf" and have the same functionality, right?

Agreed, totally.

the patch_* tools would be a pair of convenient scripts, nothing more,
that handle patch information as mentioned before.

We can package those scripts in a binpatch package as you suggest, but
it will not prevent anybody to just untar them.

And still I think that a patch_add script should handle /var/db/binpatch.

What I would like to see next is z0mbix's scripts making use of your
idea of optional mirrors for downloading binpatches, as well as
verifying signatures.

--=20
Gerardo Santana