From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Apr 2 13:02:32 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D16461065672 for ; Fri, 2 Apr 2010 13:02:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mad@madpilot.net) Received: from megatron.madpilot.net (megatron.madpilot.net [88.149.173.206]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DE4C8FC0C for ; Fri, 2 Apr 2010 13:02:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from megatron.madpilot.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by megatron.madpilot.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80A871524; Fri, 2 Apr 2010 14:46:41 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=madpilot.net; h= user-agent:in-reply-to:content-disposition:content-type :content-type:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:subject :from:from:date:date:received:received; s=mail; t=1270212394; x= 1272026794; bh=dX7cSJqfY7+OzHOJQOzznR5L2UkzMdbZWA7UpZYArGU=; b=S BywgMh8jE8vZ/9iopC41z9cdmovbmfGTKHLYyl4iNTqD5F/xTZMZNwagZeM9NhHu Fhw9sNjiIoCfs5JUNxMe3FjJfezMM06xJWNiug/6p8Lpruf1M+GDpHQuocZVTZ4J PLaoJW17b/Cwc7T0mge0PdbtvKbJNTQ0ciGN5l45AI= X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at madpilot.net Received: from megatron.madpilot.net ([127.0.0.1]) by megatron.madpilot.net (megatron.madpilot.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id sU75wPeBSBud; Fri, 2 Apr 2010 14:46:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: by megatron.madpilot.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 35A52151C; Fri, 2 Apr 2010 14:46:34 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 14:46:34 +0200 From: Guido Falsi To: sthaug@nethelp.no Message-ID: <20100402124633.GC33426@megatron.madpilot.net> References: <20100402021715.669838e0.stas@FreeBSD.org> <11597.1270200291@critter.freebsd.dk> <20100402101454.GA62089@icarus.home.lan> <20100402.122836.41723967.sthaug@nethelp.no> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100402.122836.41723967.sthaug@nethelp.no> X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 8.0-STABLE User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Cc: randy@psg.com, dougb@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org, stas@FreeBSD.org, phk@phk.freebsd.dk, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org, freebsd@jdc.parodius.com Subject: Re: Results of BIND RFC X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 13:02:33 -0000 On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 12:28:36PM +0200, sthaug@nethelp.no wrote: > > [1]: FreeBSD really needs to move away from the "base system" as a > > concept, as I've ranted about in the past. > > Strongly disagree. I'm with you! > > > Or if it cannot, the "base > > system" needs to start using pkg_* (somehow) for use, and src.conf > > WITHOUT_xxx (where xxx = some software) removed. Concept being: "I > > don't need Kerberos; pkg_delete base-krb5. I also don't need lib32; > > pkg_delete base-lib32". Beautiful concept, hard to implement due to > > libraries being yanked out from underneathe binaries that are linked to > > them. But you get the idea. > > This *might* be workable. However, in general - a large part of the > reason why I use FreeBSD is that the FreeBSD base system gives me > most of what I want, in *one* well defined chunk, *without* having > to install a zillion extra packages, and without umpteen different > versions of config files and locations for the important information. > Also, more than that, won't splitting the "base system" in many smaller pieces moving around by themselves make every single part of freeBSD a moving target? What I mean is that what may look like a way to simplify things could make matters worse with incompatibilities in between the base packages. having everythign in the base system guarantees much more control. I'm also thinking about the nightmares this kind of splitting could cause to release engineering. This is not pure speculation. Such problems do appear in many other known open source OSes with such a split base system. In fact, if I wanted such a thing I'd install that other open source OS. I did in fact, and observed many annoying things about not having a rich base system like ours(like wasting time figuring which packet contained commands I'm used to see in the base system on any unix. > So please don't destroy this. I hope not. Another good reason not to destroy this is again that there are already many alternative OSes doing it, and I think FreebSD has a strong point in being different, not a weak spot. -- Guido Falsi