Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 14:42:16 -0800 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: sos@FreeBSD.org Cc: 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: <10780.851985736@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 30 Dec 1996 23:18:13 %2B0100." <199612302218.XAA00724@ravenock.cybercity.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 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 right *general* idea, but the number of problems which it leaves unsolved are numerous. We ran into the most obvious one the minute we started writing and incorporating perl utilities into the system, and perl4 slid on in to solve the dependency problem. We will keep having dependency problems and the ports & packages collection will keep being a non-solution to them for just as long as we keep it fully decoupled from the source & binary distribution system. I'm not even sure that keeping it decoupled is such a bad idea, but you can't have it both ways - either the ports and packages collection remain ideologically and functionally separate, and things like Perl5 and TCL come into the tree in order to solve our basic tool dependency issues, or ports and packages becomes part of a more cohesive load-on-demand system where the line between initially loaded distributions and packages goes away entirely (same for sources and "ports") and we stop even worrying about this, since the user will configure his system in much the same way as the VM system fills the buffer cache - on demand! :-) However, the latter is also a lot of work. Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?10780.851985736>