From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <12626892729276d3c465686d0bee1786@9srv.net>
From: a@9srv.net
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] x10
In-Reply-To: <02b701c41ca4$461d34f0$0cc47d50@SOMA>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Wed,  7 Apr 2004 11:29:40 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 548d3c16-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

// however, i have seen sloppy apt-get's smashing things into
// an unusable state.  this shows that there is something
// fundementally wrong with this whole 'pull it across
// the net' philosophy and this is before we get into
// security issues.

no, i don't think it does. regardless of what model you use,=20
package maintainers can always make mistakes, and there are
always security questions. the fact that the specific apt-get
implementation of the 'pull it across the net' model is=20
flawed (but still pretty good) just means that apt-get needs
fixing.

how to do that without having dumps or snapshots is left as
an exercise for the reader. ;-)

the first time i cd'd into the BSD ports tree and did a make
that automatically pulled things over the net i was totally
blown away. even if i did have to go to dinner while the
package downloaded over my 14.4K modem. :-)
=E3=82=A2