Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 04:27:05 -0800 From: Luigi Rizzo <luigi@FreeBSD.org> To: Scott Long <scottl@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/release/picobsd/build picobsd Message-ID: <20040321042705.A21986@xorpc.icir.org> In-Reply-To: <405D7232.30400@freebsd.org>; from scottl@FreeBSD.org on Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 03:45:06AM -0700 References: <200403211046.i2LAkDHK049730@repoman.freebsd.org> <405D7232.30400@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 03:45:06AM -0700, Scott Long wrote: ... > Does PicoBSD actually have any life left in it as far as FreeBSD 5.x is > concerned? I was under the impression that it was pretty broken. this was phk assertion. Several people replied with a totally different view. There are occasional glitches due to pieces going away from the base system (perl, libmd, whatnot), changes in the kernel config options, and of course the usual code bloat that causes many of the existing configs not fit anymore in 1.44 floppies, but this is all pretty trivial stuff that can be fixed quickly. This said, i do believe that the 'picobsd' script (which is just a cross-release build script) at least should go either in a port, or in /usr/bin. Most of the rest of the configs could be moved to a port, the only difficulty is with kernel config files which need to track the kernel sources closely. The advantage of having picobsd and all stripped down variants of FreeBSD in a port (perhaps with their own category) is that we would stop privileging one over the other, and we would also stop endless discussion on whether to nuke it or not from the base tree. In fact, it could be useful also in terms of QA because the port build script would automatically notify of failures and help a quicker fixing of problems. cheers luigi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040321042705.A21986>