From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Tue Apr 19 08:39:12 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ADEDB114FB for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 08:39:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from slw@zxy.spb.ru) Received: from zxy.spb.ru (zxy.spb.ru [195.70.199.98]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C05711248; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 08:39:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from slw@zxy.spb.ru) Received: from slw by zxy.spb.ru with local (Exim 4.86 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1asRBf-000P6W-OB; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 11:39:11 +0300 Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 11:39:11 +0300 From: Slawa Olhovchenkov To: Glen Barber Cc: Julian Elischer , freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8) Message-ID: <20160419083911.GG6614@zxy.spb.ru> References: <20160302235429.GD75641@FreeBSD.org> <57152CE5.5050500@FreeBSD.org> <9D4B9C8B-41D7-42BC-B436-D23EFFF60261@ixsystems.com> <20160418191425.GW1554@FreeBSD.org> <5715DD2E.903@freebsd.org> <20160419073117.GG1554@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160419073117.GG1554@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: slw@zxy.spb.ru X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zxy.spb.ru); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 08:39:12 -0000 On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 07:31:17AM +0000, Glen Barber wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 03:24:30PM +0800, Julian Elischer wrote: > > We've managed to keep this disease out of BSD since I started to do it in > > 1990. First we laughed/fumed at Sun's Solaris when they unbundled the > > compiler. then we fumed at xorg when hey took a useful package and made 190 > > odd packages out of it. Please don't force this on us! > > > > What isn't clear about the *numerous* statements that no one is being > *forced* to use packaged base? Because nowhere present roadmap about co-existing packaged base and traditionsl install. Because nowhere present roadmap of packaged base future. Because package base is show-stoper for 11.0 relese -- this is read as "11.0 switch to package base".