From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Jun 17 09:16:27 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA17191 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 09:16:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from mail1.its.rpi.edu (root@mail1.its.rpi.edu [128.113.100.7]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA17142 for ; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 09:16:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from drosih@rpi.edu) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.acs.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by mail1.its.rpi.edu (8.8.8/8.8.6) with ESMTP id MAA69562; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 12:16:09 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: drosih@pop1.rpi.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 12:19:52 -0400 To: Nick Hibma From: Garance A Drosihn Subject: Re: 2.2.6 CD-ROM : Package dependencies up the creek ? Cc: FreeBSD hackers mailing list Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At 5:27 PM +0200 6/17/98, Nick Hibma wrote: > Garance wrote to Nick, in response to a message that Nick sent > to Garance (but was mistakenly not sent to the hackers list): > > I was thinking more towards a short list of things that a newbie > > (or almost anyone) would need within a few hours of starting a > > fresh install. The "just to get going" packages, not the "this > > is what we run on our production machines" packages. Many of > > the things you listed do make sense for a "just to get going" > > list, but certainly things like apache are not needed early in > > the game. And I'd argue that for something like apache you > > might want to download and build the latest version anyway (I > > know I would), so there's no point in installing the package > > version just to replace it a few hours later. > > That is true, but the idea of profiles and a more copious choice of > what you might want to install is not a bad idea either I think. I think it is a "slippery slope", as each of us has a different collection of packages which we feel are important for machines once we have them setup as a production service. If we start down this path, we will probably end up just reorganizing the ports list, whereas what I'm hoping for is a very short list of packages which are displayed during the initial install time. > But for the initial installation before a package manager shows up, > maybe you are right. That should be kept clean and nice and simple. > But if bash is in the list, aren't people going to argue that jbsh > (Joe Bloe's shell) should be in that list as well? I would expect most shells will be on this "short list". As part of the install process the user going to be asked to create some personal ID's, and that account-creation will work better if the shell is already installed. Shells are an example of a package that you "need" (if you're really used to some particular shell) even before the install process itself is over. I just mentioned bash because that's the shell I "need". Obviously I can get by using other shells, but it only takes about five minutes before I start missing shell features which I'm pretty used to. --- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@eclipse.its.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or drosih@rpi.edu Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message