From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri May 17 07:39:42 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id HAA21035 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 17 May 1996 07:39:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rocky.sri.MT.net (rocky.sri.MT.net [204.182.243.10]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id HAA21027 for ; Fri, 17 May 1996 07:39:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.sri.MT.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA27118; Fri, 17 May 1996 08:39:22 -0600 Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 08:39:22 -0600 From: Nate Williams Message-Id: <199605171439.IAA27118@rocky.sri.MT.net> To: "Richard Wackerbarth" Cc: "hackers@FreeBSD.org" , "Michael Smith" Subject: Re: Re(2): Standard Shipping Containers - A Proposal for Distributing FreeBSD In-Reply-To: References: Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > 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