Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 21:31:11 +0800 From: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: rcs Message-ID: <52555A9F.7000609@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <525422B6.9040906@mu.org> References: <60177810-8DC4-4EA3-8040-A834B79039D2@orthanc.ca> <52538EDC.2080001@freebsd.org> <52541202.3010707@mu.org> <20131008.170444.74714516.sthaug@nethelp.no> <525422B6.9040906@mu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 10/8/13 11:20 PM, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > On 10/8/13 8:04 AM, sthaug@nethelp.no wrote: >>>> I think the fact is that most direct users of RCS use it in a very >>>> simple way, and >>>> it works just fine for that. with no real need for any updates >>>> or any >>>> change. >>> With all due respect Julian, The more we discuss this more this >>> really >>> points to the problem that FreeBSD appears to be a challenge to >>> install >>> packages into such that a package moving out of base is such a big >>> deal. >>> >>> Can we fix that instead? >>> >>> I mean, this change should really not be a big deal, but yet it is >>> and >>> this speaks to the core of FreeBSD utility. >> Not commenting on RCS here, but on the concept of moving packages out >> of the base: >> >> - For some of us, the attraction of FreeBSD is that it is a tightly >> integrated system, and the base contains enough useful functionality >> that we don't *have* to add a lot of packages. >> >> - Each package that is moved out of the base system means less useful >> functionality in the base system - and for me: Less reason to use >> FreeBSD instead of Linux. >> >> I absolutely see the problem of maintaining out-of-date packages in >> the base system, and the desirability of making the base system less >> reliant on GPL. I'm mostly troubled by the fact that there seems to >> be a rather strong tendency the last few years of having steadily >> less functionality in the base system - and I'm not at all convinced >> that the right balance has been found here. >> >> This discussion is not new, and I don't expect to convince any new >> persons... >> >> > I'm sure other devs will disagree, but with ~15 years of FreeBSD > experience and ~13 years as a dev, my very strong opinion is that > this tightly coupled system is actually a boat anchor sinking us. you are right.. I disagree :-) > > Just because no one else does it a certain way, does not mean that a > unique way of doing something is correct and/or sustainable. Maybe > in 1995, 1999, or 2005 even, but not today. Especially in the > context of add-on tools like rcs. > > What we need to discuss is lowering the bar to making custom installs. > > I personally find that installing FreeBSD is useless until I install > "screen, zsh, vim-lite, git" why is that so manual for me? Why > can't I just register a package set somewhere so that all I have to > type in is "alfred.perlstein.devel" into a box during the installer > and I get all my packages by default? I agree in part.. we should have several levels of packages.. where the highest level is pretty much indistinguishable from what we have now as base utilities.. we maintian the package, but we also maintain the source the package pulls from. it has hte same guarantee of being in sync as currently we have for base utils. under that we have 'highly used and trusted apps' (X11, bind, apache, python etc), and after that there are "the others". but until then I consider rcs a bit like awk.. something I just expect to be there. and use like that...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?52555A9F.7000609>