Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 23:18:13 +0100 (MET) From: sos@FreeBSD.org To: jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard) Cc: sos@FreeBSD.org, joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de, CVS-committers@freefall.freebsd.org, peter@spinner.dialix.com, peter@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-all@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-usrbin@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/vi Makefile Message-ID: <199612302218.XAA00724@ravenock.cybercity.dk> In-Reply-To: <25122.851981578@time.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at "Dec 30, 96 01:32:58 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In reply to Jordan K. Hubbard who wrote:
> > Ahem, I won't even comment on this, you all know my POV, but if
> > it should go in, PLEASE as little as possible....
> >
> > What would the sentiment be if I made it possible to build
> > a FreeBSD-lite out of our sources, ie "make lite" ??
>
> This seems to imply that you're taking a "standard" FreeBSD
> source/binary tree and removing things, which sounds backward. If you
> don't want something like perl5 in your system, you shouldn't load it
> in the first place, and solving this problem is really more a matter
> of further compartmentalizing the bin and src distributions so that
> it's possible for us to say that.
If you put perl5 in instead of perl4 I have no choice it gets intstalled
as part of the base system. I would have worked had it stayed a port....
> If we give the user the facilities necessary for sub-selecting a
> FreeBSD installation to that degree, we can make "FreeBSD, the
> superset" essentially as large as we want. I still wouldn't want to
> make it *too* large, since developers still bear the brunt of grabbing
> the whole thing, but I think we've nonetheless got to admit to
> ourselves that we're only going to continue to add software to the
> system as it evolves. That's OK, just so long as we make it also
> possible for the minimalists to pick and choose only the components
> they need.
What was wrong with the old ways, base & ports ?? I worked pretty
well, maybe we should have given it a fancier name or something,
but it was the right idea...
> The bin distribution has always been too big, and I think we've always
> known that. Garrett had some ideas for subsecting it which I didn't
> like, but only because of where he drew the lines, not because he drew
> them. I'd also more than welcome a wider discussion on breaking this
> into smaller logical pieces since I think there are probably as many
> distinct points of view on that as there are core team members. :-)
Well, we certainly have different uses for the system, and that shows
up in the ways we want it to be. What I'm advocating is that we keep
the base system small and simple (and in good shape with minimal
bugs in there etc etc), and then make add ons with all those fancy
things you can imagine, we allmost had that in ports, now we can reinvent
it and call it something new, like custom, shit thats allready taken,
erhm now what...
(plenty of :) should be inserted at will)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Søren Schmidt (sos@FreeBSD.org) FreeBSD Core Team
Even more code to hack -- will it ever end
..
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199612302218.XAA00724>