Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:27:20 -0500 From: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@online.fr> To: Richard Coleman <richardcoleman@mindspring.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Pkg-based base system. Message-ID: <20040318172720.GA31299@online.fr> In-Reply-To: <405971FF.7050606@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Richard Coleman wrote: > > Bind and Sendmail are traditional BSD components. The 'B' in "BIND" is > > "Berkeley". Perl was never part of traditional BSD. Being present in > > traditional BSD is one of the justficiations for having something in the > > base system. If you don't want BSD, there are alternatives. > > I understand what you are saying, but "tradition" is not a very good > technical argument. I suspect -current differs from BSD-lite in many > fundamental ways. > > But I don't think anyone is advocating Linux-style granularity of > packages. Most people just want a little finer granularity to handle > bind, sendmail, dhcp, and maybe openssh. Yes, and nobody is suggesting removing anything from the base system, merely making it easier for the end-user to remove unnecessary base components. Ramming bind, sendmail etc down everyone's throat because it's historically BSD isn't a good idea. > The fact that certain bikesheds come up frequently is an indication that > many people are interested in it. In this case it's certainly not a bikeshed: Colin Percival posted a very nice solution for registering base system components in the package DB, while Ruslan said that a "make deinstall" target in the base makefiles is planned. These solutions will not require removing anything from the base system and will not change anything for people who like the BSD buildworld/installworld way. But there is this unfortunate tendency to dismiss any argument as a "bikeshed" just because one doesn't like it. Rahul
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040318172720.GA31299>