From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 25 09:09:40 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC60F8BD for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 09:09:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from theravensnest.org (theraven.freebsd.your.org [216.14.102.27]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FEAD1024 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 09:09:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.7] (cpc28-cmbg15-2-0-cust64.5-4.cable.virginm.net [86.27.189.65]) (authenticated bits=0) by theravensnest.org (8.14.7/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s1P99KqR069934 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 25 Feb 2014 09:09:23 GMT (envelope-from theraven@FreeBSD.org) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\)) Subject: Re: Import of DragonFly Mail Agent From: David Chisnall In-Reply-To: <530C4FBC.7000802@digsys.bg> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 09:09:15 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <773EBF0C-99AC-4FF2-AB6F-26131AC7BCB8@FreeBSD.org> References: <20140223211155.GS1699@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <942222.61849.bm@smtp118.sbc.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <530B5DA7.1050902@digsys.bg> <1393264180.28812.87188993.20F1344F@webmail.messagingengine.com> <530C4FBC.7000802@digsys.bg> To: Daniel Kalchev X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827) Cc: FreeBSD current X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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, 25 Feb 2014 09:09:40 -0000 On 25 Feb 2014, at 08:09, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > What we risk with "everything is a port" concept is that we live in a = world that there is a lot of software to chose from, but from time to = time, the software happens to be incompatible with FreeBSD in one way, = or another. Another risk is the confusion of too much choice. I think that, over the next few years, the hard line between base system = and ports is going to become a little bit more of a gradient. I would = like us to end up with multiple tiers: 1) These packages are required for absolutely everything, don't even = think about not installing them even in a minimal service jail. 2) These packages are required for a useable system. They're in the = default install, but if you're creating a jail you might not want them = (e.g. nvi, some of the management tools) because you'll be doing all of = your configuration with the version in the base system. 3) These packages are maintained by the FreeBSD project and are expected = to integrate well with the base system. Some of them are part of = various recommended installs for different configurations (e.g. = graphical workstation, web server, whatever), but you can have a working = minimal install without any of them. They will be supported for the = duration of the release, including prompt security updates. =20 4) These packages are third-party programs that have been tested with = FreeBSD and packaged by members of the FreeBSD project, but are = developed independently. They will be supported on a best-effort basis = for the release, but you may find that upgrading to a new version = requires a newer release at some point. 5) These packages are provided by third parties, on third-party = repositories, with no involvement from anyone in the FreeBSD project. =20= Currently, the base system overlaps tiers 1-3, and ports overlaps tiers = 3-4. Tier 3 is the source of most bikesheds, because there are lots of = things that would benefit from some FreeBSD-specific integration work, = are essential to a large section of the FreeBSD userbase, but are = completely irrelevant to another large section. =20 David