From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri May 2 11:19:27 2003 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 DC3F237B401 for ; Fri, 2 May 2003 11:19:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp1.netcologne.de (smtp1.netcologne.de [194.8.194.112]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3EAC43F93 for ; Fri, 2 May 2003 11:19:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tmseck-lists@netcologne.de) Received: from laurel.tmseck.homedns.org (xdsl-213-196-194-170.netcologne.de [213.196.194.170]) by smtp1.netcologne.de (Postfix) with SMTP id ED1B638968 for ; Fri, 2 May 2003 20:19:23 +0200 (MEST) Received: (qmail 32843 invoked by uid 1001); 2 May 2003 18:19:45 -0000 Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 20:19:23 +0200 From: Thomas Seck To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20030502181922.GA425@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> Mail-Followup-To: Thomas Seck , freebsd-current@freebsd.org References: <20030502171957.28624.qmail@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> <3EB2AC00.7070307@tcoip.com.br> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3EB2AC00.7070307@tcoip.com.br> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: private site in Germany X-PGP-KeyID: DF46EE05 X-PGP-Fingerprint: A38F AE66 6B11 6EB9 5D1A B67D 2444 2FE1 DF46 EE05 X-Attribution: tms Subject: Re: HEADS UP: bzip2(1) compression for manpages, Groff and Texinfo docs 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: Fri, 02 May 2003 18:19:28 -0000 * Daniel C. Sobral (dcs@tcoip.com.br): > Thomas Seck wrote: > >I can see no benefit in switching to bzip2 other than eliminating GPL'ed > >software. No, I do not think disk space is an issue nowadays. > > If two programs do the same thing, but one is GPL and the other is not, > the other one is clearly preferable for FreeBSD. Why? For religious reasons maybe. > As far as _ports_ are concerned, it is irrelevant. As far as the _base_ > system is concerned, the less we depend on GPL, the better. > > The "sole benefit" you see is clearly enough of a benefit. There _are_ > good reasons to reduce dependency on GPL, y'know. Sorry, but then you would have to replace binutils, gcc, groff, and many other things too. But this has been discussed to death already. --Thomas