Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 10:09:53 -0800 From: Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@komquats.com> To: Eugene Grosbein <eugen@grosbein.net> Cc: Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@komquats.com>, "Julian H. Stacey" <jhs@berklix.com>, "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org" <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: The future of fortune(6) Message-ID: <201711261809.vAQI9sAT088610@slippy.cwsent.com> In-Reply-To: Message from Eugene Grosbein <eugen@grosbein.net> of "Mon, 27 Nov 2017 00:44:35 %2B0700." <5A1AFD83.8000503@grosbein.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <5A1AFD83.8000503@grosbein.net>, Eugene Grosbein writes:
> 26.11.2017 22:59, Cy Schubert wrote:
>
> > Fortune in base is totally indefensible and for that matter even in ports
> > it is. It absolutely has to go. I fully support Benno's effort.
>
> Please don't mix fortune(6) C code with contents of src/usr.bin/fortune/datfi
> les.
>
> The code src/usr.bin/fortune/{fortune|strfile} is valuable and independend of
> exact datfiles
> and there is no reason to remove it from the base as we have no alternatives
> for the task whey solve.
Putting my Canadian hat on instead of being my frustrated self today:
I think the way forward is to replace fortune in base with a shell script
to conditionally execute ${LOCALBASE}/bin/fortune and if not found advises
the user to ask their sysadmin to install a fortune port/package.
I have a revision in to do the removal and plan on creating a series of
ports based on bsdgames. However I'm totally willing to let someone else
take the lead on this.
I think this is acceptable.
--
Cheers,
Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com>
FreeBSD UNIX: <cy@FreeBSD.org> Web: http://www.FreeBSD.org
The need of the many outweighs the greed of the few.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201711261809.vAQI9sAT088610>