From owner-freebsd-small Tue Jul 25 1: 3: 2 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-small@freebsd.org Received: from blount.mail.mindspring.net (blount.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.226]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A9E337BB29 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 01:02:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jhix@mindspring.com) Received: from jhix.mindspring.com (user-33qtga8.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.193.72]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA15241; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 04:02:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from jhix (jhix@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jhix.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id BAA06013; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 01:04:01 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jhix@jhix.mindspring.com) Message-Id: <200007250804.BAA06013@mindspring.com> To: "Jeffrey S. Sharp" Cc: freebsd-small@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: TinyBSD kit progress report In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 25 Jul 2000 01:17:58 CDT." Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 01:04:00 -0700 From: W Gerald Hicks Sender: owner-freebsd-small@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > It seems to me that it would be a lot more interesting to have the > > ports/build frameworks set up to accomodate building "these things" > > out of the src/ tree. > > ... > > ports/itsybsd anyone? :-) > Interesting idea, but there are some things about small freebsd kits > that are tightly coupled to the underlying system. Exactly and it's just this coupling I would like to see our collective energies invested into removing instead of heading down the path of a redux of our picobsd experience. Some time ago I submitted an experimental patch which allowed ports to fetch their sources via CVS. This allows the construction of aribitrary source trees from divergent branches and possibly even from other projects. I used this ugly little hack for my own small-freebsd variant (FleaBSD) > Imagine the differences introduced when installing the port onto > systems from different branches... Sure, we could make it happen > with some Makefile/patch magic, but having the kit in src/release > seems like the simpler solution IMHO. I've been through the issues in depth, they aren't insurmountable. The most difficult part of something like this will be gaining a consensus as to how we should approach it. Another issue is to convince the mainline developers to consider the small-bsd variants when adding new features to the mainline development. Since Andrzej has moved on to other things it seems to me that the few interested committers have mostly introduced their own biases and desires onto the subtree with little regard for how people were actually using PicoBSD. (To be fair, some of the work was done thoughtfully and with a broad vision). Right now I think it's fair to say that PicoBSD is a festering mess and that the current development model isn't working very well. Reproducing that model doesn't seem to be the right approach to me. All that and I *like* {Tiny,Pico}BSD :-) Cheers, Jerry Hicks jhix@mindspring.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-small" in the body of the message