Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 08:33:44 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> To: Andreas Nilsson <andrnils@gmail.com> Cc: Current FreeBSD <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: rcs Message-ID: <525425D8.5040404@mu.org> In-Reply-To: <CAPS9%2BSut7t=S8Kp5WH=0ZMUW2B4DR0O3OAbAvuRUc=D54mMuRA@mail.gmail.com> References: <60177810-8DC4-4EA3-8040-A834B79039D2@orthanc.ca> <52538EDC.2080001@freebsd.org> <52541202.3010707@mu.org> <20131008.170444.74714516.sthaug@nethelp.no> <525422B6.9040906@mu.org> <CAPS9%2BSut7t=S8Kp5WH=0ZMUW2B4DR0O3OAbAvuRUc=D54mMuRA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 10/8/13 8:26 AM, Andreas Nilsson wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org > <mailto:bright@mu.org>> wrote: > > On 10/8/13 8:04 AM, sthaug@nethelp.no <mailto: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 I absolutely see the problem of maintaining out-of-date 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 > > You technically can. Make your own "meta-port" which depends on the > stuff you want. Build package-set with for example poudriere, ship > those packages on your install-media. Done. > Oh I have done that in the past, but why the editing, the makefiles, the etc, etc, etc. Why isn't there a customize.freebsd.org where I just hit a few checkboxes, save and then hit download? -- Alfred Perlstein
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?525425D8.5040404>