From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 9 13:34:15 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2561953B; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 13:34:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Received: from vps1.elischer.org (vps1.elischer.org [204.109.63.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE94E26FF; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 13:34:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jre-mbp.elischer.org (ppp121-45-246-96.lns20.per2.internode.on.net [121.45.246.96]) (authenticated bits=0) by vps1.elischer.org (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id r99DY7Y5041679 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 9 Oct 2013 06:34:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <52555B49.1070207@freebsd.org> Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 21:34:01 +0800 From: Julian Elischer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Graham Todd Subject: Re: rcs 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> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Adrian Chadd , Alfred Perlstein , freebsd-current X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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, 09 Oct 2013 13:34:15 -0000 On 10/9/13 4:38 AM, Graham Todd wrote: > > On Tue, 8 Oct 2013, Adrian Chadd wrote: > >> I think that's great. But, as we are increasingly finding, theres >> no stable >> ports snapshot, so unless we as a project change how packages are >> managed, >> there may not really be a stable, predictable version of things once >> they're moved from base to a package. A number of users and >> companies like >> that there is a very strict definition of base and that it wont >> change as >> the ports tree changes. >> >> Eg, you install 10.0 and get the rcs package from that. You then do an >> install of 10.0 a yeat later and install rcs. If it comes from the >> 10-stable pkgng set, itll pick up the latest version, not the 10.0 >> version. >> Thats the big ports vs base difference. > > Perhaps a perl style "dual life module" set of "core" (errm BASE?) > packages/ports will emerge. It could resolve some of the perennial > "what is BASE"? debates - or at least make it possible to have those > debates in a different way :-) > > My understanding is that dealing with the GPLv3 issue for BASE is > *necessary* for the project. Since the latest rcs releases are > licensed using GPLv3, FreeBSD's BASE rcs (GPLv2) would have to be > maintained exclusively by the FreeBSD project - which means more > developer overhead (the same could be said for gcc I suppose). That > seems to be a different type of issue than the size/completeness of > BASE itself. but RCS is not GPLv3 and what we have works fine... just leave it alone! > > Since rcs is a small utility, it's hooked into a script or two via > rc.subr, it's useful to a lot of folks, it doesn't face the network > and there's a BSD licensed equivalent sort of available, then maybe > the best way to go would be to import opencvs's rcs (which is not > part in the ports version of opencvs) to replace the GNU version. > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >