Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:04:45 +0000 From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> To: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@winston.osd.bsdi.com> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Moving Things [was Re: List of things to move from main tree] Message-ID: <20010220100445.A35619@hand.dotat.at> In-Reply-To: <2628.982402377@winston.osd.bsdi.com> References: <mark@grondar.za> <200102170732.f1H7WS952157@gratis.grondar.za> <2628.982402377@winston.osd.bsdi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jordan Hubbard <jkh@winston.osd.bsdi.com> wrote: > >In a design like this, all distinction between src and ports goes away >and it largely comes down to how much source the user wants to have >lying around - anything from all to none. This whole thing -- splitting the OS up into a bunch of small independently-selectable packages -- sounds exactly like the way Debian works, except I expect FreeBSD would have more emphasis on using a revision control system for at least the core components rather than a ports-like collection of random patches. My introduction [1] to free unices was Debian. The main problem I had with it was that the two-and-two-halves-level organization of the packages was too broad. I say two-and-two-halves because it is similar to the ports two-level organization of category/port but with a big split based on the degree of freedom in the licence, and with a second "priority" attribute that determines how core the package is. The ports collection has the same problem -- too much stuff to wade through. When installing the core OS being presented with N thousand components to choose from is not good. Yes, this is a user-interface issue, and concentrating more on the forest given by the priority attribute at installation time rather than all the trees of the packages is a better approach. I note that one thing the ports has that IIRC Debian doesn't have the idea of a package being in more than one category; this is useful because it can then subsume the priority attribute, e.g. sh would be in "core" and "shells" but bash is just in "shells". With an appropriate user interface you can also then say "show me all X11 text editors" etc. Another problem with Debian is their very slow release cycle. This is partly due to lack of discipline but also due to size: they have more developers and more packages, and they also require that a much larger proportion of the packages (essentially every GPLed/BSDed/MITed Linux/Unix/X tool) are up to the same standard in order to do a release. And their lack of a central CVS repository means that the release engineer or whoever cannot fix an errant package without seriously inconveniencing the package's maintainer. [1] five years ago, to give you an idea of how stale my information is Tony. -- f.a.n.finch fanf@covalent.net dot@dotat.at GERMAN BIGHT: NORTHWESTERLY 5 OR 6. RAIN LATER. MODERATE OR GOOD. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010220100445.A35619>