From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 4 00:25:12 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx2.freebsd.org (mx2.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::35]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88D4F1065675 for ; Sun, 4 Dec 2011 00:25:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (hub.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::36]) by mx2.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6438A1A86DF; Sun, 4 Dec 2011 00:25:12 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4EDABDE8.9060406@FreeBSD.org> Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2011 16:25:12 -0800 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Roman Kurakin References: <20111202115446.GB25963@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <4ED974A2.7080606@FreeBSD.org> <4ED9EA27.8090206@inse.ru> In-Reply-To: <4ED9EA27.8090206@inse.ru> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-current Subject: Re: CVS removal from the 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: Sun, 04 Dec 2011 00:25:12 -0000 On 12/3/2011 1:21 AM, Roman Kurakin wrote: > Doug Barton wrote: >> [...] The fact that we have so many people who are radically >> change-averse, no matter how rational the change; is a bug, not a >> feature. >> >> This particular bug is complicated dramatically by the fact that >> the majority view seems to lean heavily towards "If I use it, it >> must be the default and/or in the base" rather than seeing ports as >> part of the overall operating SYSTEM. >> > You are right in general, except one small factor. We are talking > about bootstrap. You realize that you just 100% demonstrated the truth of what I wrote above, right? :) > CVS is used by many as the one of the ways to get > the sources to the freshly installed system to recompile to the last > available source. It will become inconvenient to do it through the > process of installing some ports for that. Especially if > corresponding ports would require some other ports as dependences. I want to ask some serious questions here, because I genuinely want to understand your thought process. 1. Do you install *any* ports/packages on a new system before you update the source? 2. If so, why is installing one more unthinkable? 3. Why is it a problem if the port/package you need to install in the early stages has dependencies? Thanks, Doug -- "We could put the whole Internet into a book." "Too practical." Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/