From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Nov 26 14:18:58 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id OAA00411
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 26 Nov 1996 14:18:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA00405
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Tue, 26 Nov 1996 14:18:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.3/8.6.9) with ESMTP id LAA13580; Tue, 26 Nov 1996 11:19:17 -0800 (PST)
To: brantk@atlas.com, bmk@pobox.com
cc: bmk@fta.com, jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com, peter@taronga.com,
        hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Replacing sendmail 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 26 Nov 1996 09:11:18 PST."
             <199611261711.JAA15695@itchy.atlas.com> 
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 11:19:17 -0800
Message-ID: <13578.849035957@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> Joe's model for pkg_control doesn't "know" anything about services, nor
> does it need to.  It knows about "packages" and "actions".  Think of it
> as a front end to external utilities which will perform most of the work.

OK, I think we've been simply slicing the problem off at different
points and trying to compare dissimilar layers all this time. :-)

I'd have no problem with a generic pkg_control utility which sat on
top of a series of more specifically intelligent scripts, though I
think that perhaps we should consider whether it's really "packages"
we're controlling or services since in, 2 of the examples we've
already cited, the lines are somewhat blurred between controlling
packages and in-built parts of FreeBSD.

					Jordan