From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 17 02:22:19 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A942816A4CE; Wed, 17 Mar 2004 02:22:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp-out1.xs4all.nl (smtp-out1.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.11]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2C5743D3F; Wed, 17 Mar 2004 02:22:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mhellwig@xs4all.nl) Received: from xs4all.nl (sv1.10387.ip.nltree.nl [213.126.48.224]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-out1.xs4all.nl (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i2HAMDdv014741; Wed, 17 Mar 2004 11:22:17 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4058270D.8030700@xs4all.nl> Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 11:23:09 +0100 From: "Martin P. Hellwig" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040307 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Scott Long References: <20040315134745.1eb201f4.manlix@demonized.net> <20040315125710.GK797@camelot.theinternet.com.au> <20040315140153.30348b1e.manlix@demonized.net> <4057D767.2090107@freebsd.org> <6.0.1.1.1.20040317065013.03b765a0@imap.sfu.ca> <4057F887.1010709@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <4057F887.1010709@freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org cc: Colin Percival Subject: Re: Pkg-based base system. X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 10:22:19 -0000 Scott Long wrote: > The trick here is to know when you start sliding too far down the > slope. It's hard to argue about sendmail, named, gcc, etc, but where do > you stop? Before long, you'll be chopping out nvi for the people who > favor vim, and so on. I'm actually more in favor of keeping FreeBSD as > the 'reference implementation', and encouraging the to make > derivatives off if it that satifies these kinds of needs. But we will > see where things head. Above all, I support your work, but just ask you > to be cautious and not this get carried away. As a _simple_ user/administrator not bothered with any knowledge about programming, I really do strongly agree with Scott about FreeBSD being a 'reference implementation' (RI). For me some one of the strongest point of FreeBSD is that you can start with little or no knowledge about unix with FreeBSD by just reading the handbook every step at a time. This is possible _because_ there are pseudo standard tools available and integrated with FreeBSD, and by that well documented in the handbook. It makes my life allot easier and by this leaving some time to continue to learn about this system so that maybe someday I can be more useful for the FreeBSD community. But no matter how much I like this system and whatever more or less good arguments there are given, people would have other ideas about how it should be done, thats something IMO we should not only live with this but also encourage. Colin his "nuke_a_part_of_world-o-matic" initiative is from a personal standpoint a good intermediate between a total package based system and a RI. Maybe this can be placed in the port tree like being a kind of meta-port , it might even be a distribution port so that when doing a "make iso" the system compiles it's own personalized binary distribution which then can be burned on CD-ROM and installed on other systems. From a (personal) user perspective the advantage is that the RI is modified which avoids confusion about having another derivative. Probably there are allot of (dis)advantages about this, although I might not understand all of the opinions, I really do like to read them . MPH