From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Feb 11 10:20:45 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) id KAA28690 for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 11 Feb 1995 10:20:45 -0800 Received: from skynet.ctr.columbia.edu (skynet.ctr.columbia.edu [128.59.64.70]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id KAA28684 for ; Sat, 11 Feb 1995 10:20:42 -0800 Received: (from wpaul@localhost) by skynet.ctr.columbia.edu (8.6.8/8.6.6) id NAA03528; Sat, 11 Feb 1995 13:18:12 -0500 From: Wankle Rotary Engine Message-Id: <199502111818.NAA03528@skynet.ctr.columbia.edu> Subject: Re: "development dist" good idea ? To: phk@ref.tfs.com (Poul-Henning Kamp) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 13:18:09 -0500 (EST) Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <199502110520.VAA01997@ref.tfs.com> from "Poul-Henning Kamp" at Feb 10, 95 09:20:07 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2575 Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk They say this Poul-Henning Kamp person was kidding when he wrote: > > We have talked about a "development distribution" to reduce the size of > the bindist. > > Is this considered a good idea ? Uhm. Hurm. As far as I'm concerned, yes and no. It's a good idea for reducing the amount of disk space required for a basic installation, which will undoubtedly please many people. But for me, it just means more things I have to do when I install: I wouldn't dream of setting up a FreeBSD system without the development tools. > Here is what I guess would go into it: > (send me email if you think this list should be changed) > > /usr/lib/*.[ao] > /usr/include > /usr/libexec/cc* > /usr/bin/{cc,cpp,size,nm,as,gcc.g++,f77,gdb,f2c,gprof,gcore,make > rpcgen,strip,tsort,lorder,cruchgen,crunchide} ^^^^ Eeek! No, don't get rid of make. In order for the NIS server stuff to work correctly, you need make to process /var/yp/Makefile (which somehow managed not to make it into the last snapshot -- no pun intended). There may be other things that need it though I can't think of any off hand. cpp is another one that should stay (xdm needs it), but somebody already mentioned that. > This will move approx 9Mb (installed size) into the devdist... But just think of how often you'll find yourself answering newbie questions with the words: "You have to install the devdist to do that." :) > Should uucp (~ 1MB) be put on a uucpdist ? > > Any other ? > I personally would rather see it all stay together (even uucp, which I don't even use). However, I also recognize the need to make the base system smaller to accomodate the 'unwashed masses.' Until the masses learn to wash I suppose I'll just have to put up with it. I have one question though: if you're going to be splitting up the bindist into pieces, might it not be a good idea to split up the mandist too? Installing the man pages for the development tools without installing the tools themselves seems a little silly. > -- > Poul-Henning Kamp -Bill -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~T~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -Bill Paul (212) 854-6020 | System Manager Work: wpaul@ctr.columbia.edu | Center for Telecommunications Research Home: wpaul@skynet.ctr.columbia.edu | Columbia University, New York City ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Møøse Illuminati: ignore it and be confused, or join it and be confusing! ~~~~~~~~ FreeBSD 2.1.0-Development #0: Tue Feb 7 01:49:07 EST 1995 ~~~~~~~~~