Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 18:28:08 -0400 From: Matt Smith <webmaster@forsetti.com> To: sbernard@gmu.edu Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: sshd vs ports sshd Message-ID: <3D2CB4F8.5010000@forsetti.com> References: <FJEELAGFCPJHAAMJKAKCOEJDCBAA.sbernard@gmu.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Agreed -- however, I think "minimal" should be standardized as the smallest possible system that allows you to install packages. And Perhaps functional was the wrong term -- maybe "Standard" would be better. This would be the "minimal" system plus those packages that comprise what we currently call "Base". To create your own "functional" system, it should also be possible to simply select the "minimal" system and choose the packages that you desire, either via the install "gui" or via a config file. I think this would cover all the bases. -Matt Steve Bernard wrote: > And presumably you could edit a simple config file to customize a local > distribution so that it conforms to what you might feel represents a > "functional" or "minimal" base for your environment. Sounds reasonable. > > Steve > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG > [mailto:owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG]On Behalf Of Matt Smith > Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 6:01 PM > To: Helge Oldach > Cc: Mike Jakubik; fred@condo.chico.ca.us; stable@FreeBSD.ORG > Subject: Re: sshd vs ports sshd > > > Perhaps there are better ways, but here is a "simple" solution to the > issue of "apps in the base system" vs. "apps from ports": > > Install these apps (ssh, sendmail, etc) in the base system as packages. > In other words, a basic install would still install these components, > but they would be installed in /usr/local/, and would be registered with > the pkg db, so they can easily be removed, maintained, upgraded, etc. > > Also, this may allow for 2 new installation options: "Functional Base" > and "Minimal Base", with the only difference being the inclusion of a > default set of packages in the "Functional Base". > > Just my $0.02, > -Matt > > Helge Oldach wrote: > >>Mike Jakubik: >> >> >>>In no way am I saying that curtail services like syslogd or inetd should >> > be > >>>taken out. But things like openssh, sendmail, certain libs, and basically >>>most software that is available and up to date via the ports. >> >> >>No, it shouldn't. I want a full-function system with a decent MTA, a >>decent secure login facility, a decent time synchronization facility, a >>decent nameserver, and so on. I *don't* want a base system that isn't >>good for anything but eating CPU. >> >>This is not a question of getting the base system "pure" and to adhere >>minimalization efforts with a slightly religious attitude, but to have >>a base system that people can do something useful with. (Yes, I have >>several servers that don't have a single port installed because the base >>system just provides all I need.) >> >>Note that I don't care too much about *which* basic server software is >>included in the base system, however I admit that I have chosen FreeBSD >>for the reason that it has all the well-known stuff of sendmail, ssh, >>xntp and bind on board. >> >>Helge >> >>To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org >>with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message >> > > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3D2CB4F8.5010000>