From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed Jun  2  8:18:53 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from peewee.cdrom.com (simo-ppp.eccosys.com [199.100.7.96])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id AF56914F7E; Wed,  2 Jun 1999 08:18:47 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from jkh@peewee.cdrom.com)
Received: from peewee (jkh@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by peewee.cdrom.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA09740;
	Wed, 2 Jun 1999 07:30:43 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from jkh@peewee.cdrom.com)
To: Eivind Eklund <eivind@FreeBSD.ORG>
Cc: David Scheidt <dscheidt@enteract.com>, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG,
	freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: a two-level port system? (fwd) 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 01 Jun 1999 07:42:27 +0200."
             <19990601074227.B58405@bitbox.follo.net> 
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 07:30:43 -0700
Message-ID: <9736.928333843@peewee>
From: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

> The point that FreeBSD won't willingly be using restricted source code
> as a part of our distribution mechanism, I think.  It seems to be

I'm sure that Kirk has a good reason for leaving the current "modified
BSD license" in place for soft updates and when whatever timer he has
on that runs out and allows us to configure it in by default, meaning
that I have only to add an option to GENERIC while building the boot
floppies, then I'll do it.

I still don't see what the fuss is about in any case since soft
updates would be SLOWER than the async mode I use during installation
and anyone who's actually bothered to benchmark extraction of files
with the two systems knows this.  Have you ever timed it?  If not, why
not?  That seems the minimum amount of work one would be expected to
put in before arguing passionately on any topic. :-)

- Jordan


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message