Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 15:12:49 -0800 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@freefall.cdrom.com> To: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) Cc: hackers@freefall.cdrom.com Subject: Re: httpd as part of the system. Message-ID: <24352.796086769@freefall.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 24 Mar 95 15:32:43 MST." <9503242232.AA11985@cs.weber.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > > > I don't really recognize the distinction between a standard component > > > and a port... > > > > Huh. Well *I* sure do! It's the difference between being able to *count* > > > The point is that "component" implies piecemeal installation anyway. > > For instance, the kernel rebuild dist is a "component". > > Componenting itself implies optional installation of the piece. Ok, point well taken. I guess it's more of an ass-saving issue then though since we can always enjoin users who haven't loaded some component that they should do so when or if they complain about missing functionality. For some reason, the ports collection is still preceived by many as not "plug and play" enough and people don't react well to suggestions that they failed to load some port or another in response to a complaint. For example, I've had tons of complaints about gmake or bash not being "part of the system", even though both are trivially available as both ports and packages. Conversely, I've not received *one* complaint from someone who's man command didn't work because they failed to load the mandist. It may be a minor line in the sand from a technical viewpoint, but it seems to be a pretty major one to the users. Perhaps once the ports and packages are more obviously pointed out in the installation process, this problem will become less manifest, but I hesitate to rely on it. Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?24352.796086769>