Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 17 May 1996 08:39:22 -0600
From:      Nate Williams <nate@sri.MT.net>
To:        "Richard Wackerbarth" <rkw@dataplex.net>
Cc:        "hackers@FreeBSD.org" <hackers@FreeBSD.org>, "Michael Smith" <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au>
Subject:   Re: Re(2): Standard Shipping Containers - A Proposal for Distributing FreeBSD
Message-ID:  <199605171439.IAA27118@rocky.sri.MT.net>
In-Reply-To: <n1379812485.49184@Richard Wackerbarth>
References:  <n1379812485.49184@Richard Wackerbarth>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > What's wrong with things as they are?  Why should anyone feel compelled to
> change things if they're not broken?
> 
> They are broken! And I don't want to have to keep repeating the
> generation of patches to fix them.

The *distribution* mechanism is *NOT* broken.

> Here is what's broken:
> 
> 1) For the new sup user to get started, sup has to download 
> the entire source tree, even though the user already has most 
> of it from the tarball or the CD.

This is the same way with *every* package on the net, including Linux.
Everytime you want to have the 'latest&greatest' sources, there is
always a penalty involved.  Now, minimizing that penalty is worthy goal,
but calling it broken is using the wrong term.



Nate



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199605171439.IAA27118>