Date: Mon, 04 Aug 1997 01:15:32 -0700 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: Andreas Klemm <andreas@klemm.gtn.com> Cc: dg@root.com, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Make this a relese coordinator decision (was Re: ports-current/packages-current discontinued) Message-ID: <20709.870682532@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 04 Aug 1997 07:52:39 %2B0200." <19970804075239.10145@klemm.gtn.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Ok, what I didnīt know was, that you need tcl for your new > administration tool. ok. Yes, that's why I've resisted the idea of creating a separate collection for release. Now I also agree with those who've said that /usr/src/release has been mismanaged in the past due to having 3-way merges be necessary every time I make some change, but it's not my intention to keep setup as a purely installation-time tool the way sysinstall was. In fact, I rather hope to make the actual "installation" part of it very small, essentially no more than a very minimal nucleus which partitions the disk, gets some bootstrap bits onto it and then _stops_ at that point. When you boot off the hard disk, that's when setup will take over again and let you add additional components, configure interfaces, etc and so forth. Setup would also be the tool used for managing the configuration in general, its functionality extended by dropping TCL scripts into certain locations rather than having to go hack the C code for sysinstall (a real wart, that's been). Anyway, so that's why I'd like to keep it as part of /usr/src - I want bug fixes to propagate with the next make world so if somebody finds a disk-eating bug or something, I can get it fixed quickly on people's systems by simply telling them to cvsup and make the world. FWIW, I was also a strong advocate of moving docs out of /usr/src and this is already starting to have some negative tech support aspects which I didn't really count on - people who want to build the docs now have to go (in an entirely undocumented fashion) build n ports first before they can even build the docs, assuming that they've even figured out that it's an entirely new collection to add to their supfiles. I wouldn't want to see the same thing happen to setup - that kind of confusion is something I and many others run FreeBSD to avoid, the other "mix it yourself" route being rather more of a Linux thing. > Question. What do you forsee ? Or what would be your wishes for > the next year ? Without knowing the long term aims itīs difficult > to decide whatīs right or wrong. In -current? I forsee multiple architectures, each with their own toolchain support (and this is going to be *fun* - NOT :-) and I see the make system changing substantially to make it more self-contained. I also see a shift to ELF and possibly a large number of changes in the way that distributions are built and maintained. > Ok. Question ... Is TCL 8.x the TCL release that does the job > right for you ? Could we all agree to try to fix the port collection > for supporting this TCL version in -current once more ? I've already offered my help in this regard. :) > But then a question to Satoshi ... Could we hack the ports > collection, that it supports -current again ? If you mean in regard to TCL, this probably wouldn't be a big issue. If you mean in general, then I can only refer you back to my previous arguments as to why I think this is a recipe for eventual insanity. :) Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20709.870682532>