From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 11 00:27:38 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20BD91065690; Fri, 11 Jun 2010 00:27:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from out-0.mx.aerioconnect.net (outf.internet-mail-service.net [216.240.47.229]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 030BD8FC0C; Fri, 11 Jun 2010 00:27:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from idiom.com (postfix@mx0.idiom.com [216.240.32.160]) by out-0.mx.aerioconnect.net (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o5B0RblD028390; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 17:27:37 -0700 X-Client-Authorized: MaGic Cook1e X-Client-Authorized: MaGic Cook1e Received: from julian-mac.elischer.org (64.1.209.194.ptr.us.xo.net [64.1.209.194]) by idiom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 788332D6012; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 17:27:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4C118311.4000807@elischer.org> Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 17:28:01 -0700 From: Julian Elischer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X 10.4; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Doug Barton References: <201006101346.59824.jhb@freebsd.org> <4C112C6C.50000@elischer.org> <4C114A52.2060405@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4C114A52.2060405@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.67 on 216.240.47.51 Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: etcupdate tool in base? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 00:27:38 -0000 On 6/10/10 1:25 PM, Doug Barton wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 06/10/10 11:18, Julian Elischer wrote: > | It does bring up the question (yet again) if we shouldn't > | have something that is between base and ports.. > | the keep base from bloating too much bit to still indicate > | that they are supported. > > Julian, > > This statement perpetuates the idea that somehow anything in ports is > "lesser" than things that are in src, which frankly I'm way past being > sick of. The ports tree is part of FreeBSD, period. If you don't believe > me, try installing just the base without installing any ports, and then > see how much work you're able to get done. unfortunately it is true. code in the base tree gets fixed by people making sweeping changes but things from ports often do not. Ports are not installed by default so you can't assume they are there. Like it or not Ports are, no matter how little, second class citizens. I do not belittle the importance of having them, just stating the facts as I see them.