From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sun Sep 19 13:22:48 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mail0.atl.bellsouth.net (mail0.atl.bellsouth.net [205.152.0.27])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1ABE114E4F
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 13:22:44 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from wghicks@bellsouth.net)
Received: from wghicks.bellsouth.net (host-216-78-101-27.asm.bellsouth.net [216.78.101.27])
	by mail0.atl.bellsouth.net (3.3.2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA08487;
	Sun, 19 Sep 1999 16:20:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from wghicks.bellsouth.net (wghicks@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by wghicks.bellsouth.net (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id QAA00678;
	Sun, 19 Sep 1999 16:27:32 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from wghicks@wghicks.bellsouth.net)
Message-Id: <199909192027.QAA00678@bellsouth.net>
To: Shigio Yamaguchi <shigio@tamacom.com>
Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: GNU GLOBAL 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 20 Sep 1999 02:28:48 +0900."
             <199909191728.CAA01028@tamacom.com> 
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 16:27:31 -0400
From: W Gerald Hicks <wghicks@bellsouth.net>
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG


> > imho, global (a fine software package) shouldn't have been in the
> > OS source tree anyway.  To me, the proper place seems to be in the
> > ports collection along with many other development utilities.

> It seems that you misunderstand.
> Current GLOBAL(3.53 and earlier) is BSD-style licensed and it is true
> for ever.  I agree with the plan to make a ports of GNU/GLOBAL in the
> future.  But you need not remove BSD/GLOBAL from source tree.

Well, perhaps I am an extremist :-)

I am only an end-user, and not having commit priviledges anyway could
only submit a change request.  So don't interpret my opinion as what
will actually be done.  I haven't submitted a change request yet and
will probably hold off until a more authoritative consensus has been
reached.

My concern is mostly with the increasing size of the base src tree
and the intermediate files generated by make {world,release}.

In the interest of moving toward a more modular FreeBSD and smaller
base system, I believe that anything not absolutely essential to
make {kernel,world,release} should be moved to ports.

So even without the license change I would be in favor of moving
GLOBAL to ports.  Ports is not a second-rate place to have a package
located, to the contrary, it often permits more active development
since fears of breaking make {world,release} do not exist there.

Best Regards,

Jerry Hicks
wghicks@bellsouth.net


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