Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 01:35:01 -0500 (EST) From: Matthew Orgass <darkstar@pgh.net> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com> Cc: netbsd-advocacy@NetBSD.ORG, FreeBSD advocacy list <FreeBSD-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG>, advocacy@openbsd.org Subject: Re: *BSD packages... Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.96.981127003020.20056A-100000@doit.pgh.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.3.96.981126221119.14635A-100000@doit.pgh.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 26 Nov 1998, Matthew Orgass wrote: > IMO, this is the aspect that it would most benefit the *BSD community to > agree upon. If all three free BSDs (and maybe even BSDI) could adopt the > same package system, then that would eliminate a large amount of > duplicated effort and would in effect make the systems interchangable. > Each BSD can already emulate all of the others, so what difference does it > make to most users if the kernels are the same or different? If there is > one package repository and perhaps even just one install system, then *BSD > will be much more unified then Linux will ever be even if the underlying > systems diverge much further then they are already. Sorry to be the first person to reply to my own post, but I think I should clarify a few things: 1) "systems interchangable" -- of course, this wouldn't be all that true to begin with, as each would still have their owndevice drivers, etc. However, most of these make it to all three sooner or later anyway. But the existance of a single package system (including the three systems) would create *BSD. The vast majority of package software will be mostly or entirely common. Even if there are system differences and not all packages are available for all systems immediatly, the fact that they are all in the same place creates the feeling of a single system. The majority of packages that are available on all systems could then be called *BSD versions. The ability to say that software is available for Linux and *BSD and be able to point to *one* *BSD version (even if it contains system depenencies) would be IMO an enormous psychological advantage and would create quite a bit of system interchangability. This would also allow a common distribution (which would be wonderful for developers trying to port software to *BSD). 2) Unity -- Furthermore, this would be a framework for futher merging of the base systems. Common sections of userland could be put in common packages, as could any development of common defice drivers or such as they appear. Common code them benefits from three developer communities while each system is free to concentrate on it's particular focus. The existance of a good method of unifying parts of the system is probably enough to generate work on doing so, as there appear to be a number of people in favor of at least some movement in this direction. Unified packges would allow as much similarity or difference as is desired by the individual systems while creating the feel of a single *BSD. Matthew Orgass darkstar@pgh.net To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSI.3.96.981127003020.20056A-100000>