From owner-freebsd-current Sat Aug 2 17:30:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA24388 for current-outgoing; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 17:30:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from time.cdrom.com (root@time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA24380 for ; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 17:30:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from time.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.6/8.6.9) with ESMTP id RAA17158; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 17:29:35 -0700 (PDT) To: David Nugent cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ports-current/packages-current discontinued In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 03 Aug 1997 07:33:39 +1000." <199708022133.HAA14498@unique.usn.blaze.net.au> Date: Sat, 02 Aug 1997 17:29:34 -0700 Message-ID: <17153.870568174@time.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk [ I'm getting REALLY TIRED of editing your cc lines - either get that straight or leave this discussion. Redirected to -current for what is hopefully the last time ] > The ports system, in spite of its faults and shortfalls, *works*, > and works extremely well, mainly because of the efforts of porters But it doesn't work in a stand-alone environment. I wish people would stop assuming that everyone in the world has a T1 to their desks or a CDROM full of convenient tarballs. It's just not the case and arguing that ports is a complete replacement for /usr/src is just naive in the extreme. I've said it before and I'll say it again - ports would make a fine mechanism for this IF IT WERE IMPROVED to deal with those sorts of "where are my sources?" issues, but that's not the case today. > >stuff (yes perl fans, there are many out there who consider your > >favorite utility language an evil, bloated monster which should not be > >bundled with FreeBSD at all). What we have now is a rough state of > > Surely, you're not suggesting that just because something is > in not in the FreeBSD base system that it is "evil"? Oh come on, > this is such a childish attitude I can't believe I'm hearing it. Then you need to get the wax out of your ears because what you're hearing is not what I said. :-) Perl is bloated and evil because it is a large, ugly piece of software and that's all I meant by this - whether it's part of src or ports bears no relation at all to its evilness, and I merely cited it as an example of something else that people are crying for to leave /usr/src. > The question is not how large a package is, it is how useful it > is in the base distribution - how dependant upon it a FreeBSD > system is in installation and setup, and how integrated it is Yes yes yes, we know all this. But by that same token, and what you perhaps fail to realize, is that "useful" is a highly subjective term and there's MUCH MORE besides TCL in /usr/src which fits the description of "not useful" and should be slated for the executioner's axe. What annoys me are the folks, of which you are apparently one of, who feel that we can all go back to sleep safely once the giant is slain, be that particular giant perl or TCL. In reality, they're simply symptoms of a greater maliase and I'd like to hear from those who truly have constructive solutions to offer in dealing with this ongoing problem. Kill TCL and you've solved the problem for a day. Kill our inflexible src mechanism and you've a more lasting solution, but nobody wants to tackle the real problem while there are so many more convenient peccadillos to flame about. Bah. Jordan