Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 23:11:37 +0100 (MET) From: sos@FreeBSD.org To: peter@spinner.DIALix.COM (Peter Wemm) Cc: sos@FreeBSD.org, joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de, CVS-committers@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-all@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-usrbin@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/vi Makefile Message-ID: <199612302211.XAA00711@ravenock.cybercity.dk> In-Reply-To: <199612302142.FAA00844@spinner.DIALix.COM> from Peter Wemm at "Dec 31, 96 05:42:34 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In reply to Peter Wemm who wrote:
> sos@FreeBSD.org wrote:
> > In reply to J Wunsch who wrote:
> > > As Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
> > >
> > > > I was just going to comment that perhaps its time to throw out perl4
> > > > and adopt perl5 in our main tree. Yes, I know it's 3 times larger,
> > > > but...
> > >
> > > Couldn't we find a ``golden way'' to only commit the basic parts to
> > > the base tree, while leaving all the more obscure modules in
> > > portsland?
> >
> > Ahem, I won't even comment on this, you all know my POV, but if
> > it should go in, PLEASE as little as possible....
>
> For what it's worth, I agree. The reason nobody has sat down and figured
> out how to do it is because it's not exactly trivial. I'm sure it would
> be relatively simple to bring in the whole kit, kitchen sink and all, but
> that's probably the worst possible outcome as practially nobody would be
> happy. It is vital though, that we don't loose any "core" functionality
> or the compatabilty problems would also make it useless.
We _had_ a nice system called base system & ports....
Now we have to reinvent that again and call it something new, real
progress...
> > What would the sentiment be if I made it possible to build
> > a FreeBSD-lite out of our sources, ie "make lite" ??
>
> I could agree to something like that. I think the key would be to get
> people figure out how to conditionalise the parts that they don't want,
> sort out the mess an make some /etc/make.conf knobs for the useful ones.
> Things that spring to mind include (so far): perl4, perl5 (when/if), tcl,
> vi, gcc, gdb, libg++, bind, groff, all YP code, cvs, rcs, texinfo, sgml
> tools, tar, manpages, xntpd, amd, sendmail, ee, compress, telnet, uucp,
> and so on. Have I left out anybody's pet program? :-) Obviously if one
> disables groff, they dont get manpages and so on.
>
> We are talking about built-time options, aren't we? I think that going
> this far on packaging stuff for CD or release would be a mistake. But
> allowing somebody to cast off manpages and other fruit and still have a
> buildable system for running on their microwave oven doesn't bother me -
> but the idea of fragmenting the picture of what a "standard" "as-shipped"
> freebsd looks like does.
Yes, what I want to do is pollute the makefiles a bit so that I can
build a system without some of the monsters in there. It looks an awfull
lot like its almost just to throw out contrib and whats depending on
that... Well not quite, I'd like gcc & friends to be in there, for now...
All in all I just think its rediculous that we have almost doubled
the size of of src tree but have gained almost no extra functionality..
(well Billy Boy has a patent on that one, shit...)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Søren Schmidt (sos@FreeBSD.org) FreeBSD Core Team
Even more code to hack -- will it ever end
..
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199612302211.XAA00711>