From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 8 15:20:26 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EB86B61 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 15:20:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bright@mu.org) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C5752A19 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 15:20:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from Alfreds-MacBook-Pro-9.local (c-76-21-10-192.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [76.21.10.192]) by elvis.mu.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 75B691A3D52 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 08:20:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <525422B6.9040906@mu.org> Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 08:20:22 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: rcs References: <60177810-8DC4-4EA3-8040-A834B79039D2@orthanc.ca> <52538EDC.2080001@freebsd.org> <52541202.3010707@mu.org> <20131008.170444.74714516.sthaug@nethelp.no> In-Reply-To: <20131008.170444.74714516.sthaug@nethelp.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 15:20:26 -0000 On 10/8/13 8:04 AM, sthaug@nethelp.no wrote: >>> I think the fact is that most direct users of RCS use it in a very >>> simple way, and >>> it works just fine for that. with no real need for any updates or any >>> change. >> With all due respect Julian, The more we discuss this more this really >> points to the problem that FreeBSD appears to be a challenge to install >> packages into such that a package moving out of base is such a big deal. >> >> Can we fix that instead? >> >> I mean, this change should really not be a big deal, but yet it is and >> this speaks to the core of FreeBSD utility. > Not commenting on RCS here, but on the concept of moving packages out > of the base: > > - For some of us, the attraction of FreeBSD is that it is a tightly > integrated system, and the base contains enough useful functionality > that we don't *have* to add a lot of packages. > > - Each package that is moved out of the base system means less useful > functionality in the base system - and for me: Less reason to use > FreeBSD instead of Linux. > > I absolutely see the problem of maintaining out-of-date packages in > the base system, and the desirability of making the base system less > reliant on GPL. I'm mostly troubled by the fact that there seems to > be a rather strong tendency the last few years of having steadily > less functionality in the base system - and I'm not at all convinced > that the right balance has been found here. > > This discussion is not new, and I don't expect to convince any new > persons... > > I'm sure other devs will disagree, but with ~15 years of FreeBSD experience and ~13 years as a dev, my very strong opinion is that this tightly coupled system is actually a boat anchor sinking us. Just because no one else does it a certain way, does not mean that a unique way of doing something is correct and/or sustainable. Maybe in 1995, 1999, or 2005 even, but not today. Especially in the context of add-on tools like rcs. What we need to discuss is lowering the bar to making custom installs. I personally find that installing FreeBSD is useless until I install "screen, zsh, vim-lite, git" why is that so manual for me? Why can't I just register a package set somewhere so that all I have to type in is "alfred.perlstein.devel" into a box during the installer and I get all my packages by default? -- Alfred Perlstein