From owner-freebsd-ports  Sat Dec  6 00:52:56 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA01769
          for ports-outgoing; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 00:52:56 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-ports)
Received: from tera.com (tera.tera.com [207.108.223.21])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA01733;
          Sat, 6 Dec 1997 00:52:40 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from kline@tao.thought.org)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by tera.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with UUCP id AAA02920;
	Sat, 6 Dec 1997 00:50:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from kline@localhost) by tao.thought.org (8.8.5/8.7.3) id AAA20945; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 00:10:14 -0800 (PST)
From: Gary Kline <kline@thought.org>
Message-Id: <199712060810.AAA20945@tao.thought.org>
Subject: Re: 3.0 -release ?
In-Reply-To: <199712060639.XAA14244@harmony.village.org> from Warner Losh at "Dec 5, 97 11:39:14 pm"
To: imp@village.org (Warner Losh)
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 00:10:14 -0800 (PST)
Cc: jkh@time.cdrom.com, regnauld@deepo.prosa.dk, tlambert@primenet.com,
        ports@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG
Organization: <> thought.org: public access uNix in service... <>
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL32 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

According to Warner Losh:
> In message <16948.881377460@time.cdrom.com> "Jordan K. Hubbard" writes:
> : Again, it "would be nice", I'm not disputing that, I'm simply saying
> : that if we don't keep our goalset small, at least for the first couple
> : of iterations of this, then we won't get it done for any of the *BSDs
> : (including FreeBSD).
> 
> And the number of niggling, little problems that are in the ports when
> you try to use them quickly convince you that having one ports tree is
> a logistical nightmare.  the openbsd folks sent me a bunch of patches
> back when 2.2.5 was jelling, so i couldn't commit them to the freebsd
> tree.  to make matters worse, freebsd has libcrypt, while openbsd
> doesn't.  and then there was libgmp.  freebsd compresses man pages,
> while openbsd does.  the list is very long and adds up to make most
> ports not work w/o tweaking on openbsd.  in the end, to get working
> ports they had to get their own ports tree.  lots of little things
> added up to a huge problem.
> 
> i guess this is a long way of saying that i agree with jordan.
> expanding the scope of ports from just current/stable freebsd does
> come at a huge price that isn't obvious at first blush.  the devil is
> in the details for sure.  it is much harder than you'd otherwise
> think.
> 
> Warner
> 

	If there are fewer than 10 gotchas, a merger still makes 
	sense to me.  If OpenBSD is too different from FreeBSD,
	NetBSD shouldn't be.  

	Looking at this from the perspective of 20 years of
	porting code, it is certainly possible.  Whether it's
	reasonable or not is altogether another matter... .

	gary


> 


-- 
  Gary D. Kline         kline@tao.thought.org          Public service uNix