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>