From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 2 11:40:00 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9152337B404; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 11:40:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from aeimail.aei.ca (aeimail.aei.ca [206.123.6.14]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA76543FBF; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 11:39:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from anarcat@anarcat.ath.cx) Received: from shall.anarcat.ath.cx (a7r7eha2sx79cthb@dsl-133-253.aei.ca [66.36.133.253]) by aeimail.aei.ca (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id h32JdvA05608; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 14:39:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from lenny.anarcat.ath.cx (lenny.anarcat.ath.cx [192.168.0.4]) by shall.anarcat.ath.cx (Postfix) with SMTP id 5C37AE3; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 14:39:56 -0500 (EST) Received: by lenny.anarcat.ath.cx (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 2 Apr 2003 14:40:05 -0500 Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 14:40:05 -0500 From: The Anarcat To: John Baldwin Message-ID: <20030402194005.GL616@lenny.anarcat.ath.cx> Mail-Followup-To: John Baldwin , Jens Rehsack , freebsd-current@freebsd.org References: <3E8B093D.4010500@liwing.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="umrsQkkrw7viUWFs" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Removing Sendmail X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 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: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 19:40:00 -0000 --umrsQkkrw7viUWFs Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed Apr 02, 2003 at 02:29:30PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote: >=20 > > I really think splitting the base in some sub-parts would it make much= =20 > > easier to do NO_SENDMAIL on my own. So I had to remove each not require= d=20 > > file separately. That's no good solution. >=20 > [stepping back a bit ] >=20 > I find an odd situation here whenever this topic comes up. One the > one hand, people are always wanting to split the entire base system > up into small packages for each little piece of the base. On the > other hand, one of FreeBSD's selling points in real-world environments > is that it doesn't have a bunch of little packages for the base system > like Linux distros. Do people really prefer something like having > rpm's for /bin/ps to having one lump base dist for all of /bin, /sbin, > etc.? Those two aren't necessarly in contradiction. We could provide a myriad of small packages and a "wrapper package" containing them all. Debian has "tasks" to deal with this, it's a meta package that solely depend on other packages. We could do something similar, or even better: make a meta package that actually embeds the other package files. No I don't have any patches. A. --=20 Advertisers, not governments, are the primary censors of media content=20 in the United States today. - C. Edwin Baker http://www.ad-mad.co.uk/quotes/freespeech.htm --umrsQkkrw7viUWFs Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE+izyUttcWHAnWiGcRAtDJAJ9IEogA6wCaGdKvXJkjmaEFoBCGdwCfV3Rp o5EyXXLSNJtamCxzhHb4qCA= =yb5c -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --umrsQkkrw7viUWFs--