Date: Sat, 02 Aug 1997 20:55:03 +0100 From: Ade Lovett <ade@demon.net> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org, stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports-current/packages-current discontinued Message-ID: <E0wukGW-00007A-00@genghis.eng.demon.net> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 02 Aug 1997 11:32:38 PDT." <15386.870546758@time.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Jordan K. Hubbard" writes: > >Nuke TCL and you will swing the balance in the other direction, with a >lot more than just TCL biting the dust as a result. Maybe that's not >such a bad thing, but just so you understand how much of a "linchpin" >issue this one is. Surely this would depend on how far things "bite the dust". Personally, I don't think it would be unreasonable to have a situation where the base system is made up of two distinct, but heavily inter-related parts, namely that chunk of the current core system that is definitely needed to run any kind of system at all, and other parts which aren't necessarily required, but which are stamped with a kind of "seal of approval" for use with FreeBSD. We then have a situation where both sides of the "bloat" are happy, those that want a minimalistic approach can install the required components and leave out the approved integrated packages, others that prefer a full-featured system, without having to compile/install anything else, can install both. In terms of what FreeBSD (the entity) is, however, both the required and extra package components should be considered as equally important. Possibly, a somewhat simplistic attitude, but certainly something to consider, no? -aDe -- Ade Lovett, Demon Internet Ltd.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E0wukGW-00007A-00>