On 09/10/2010 19:14, jhell wrote:
quoted text
> On 09/10/2010 14:36, Doug Barton wrote:
>> On 9/10/2010 9:54 AM, David DEMELIER wrote:
>>> 2010/9/10 Matthew Jacob<mj@feral.com>:
>>>> I think not. You are given the opportunity to install prebuilt 
>>>> packages at install time, and with a modest amount of effort can
>>>> install prebuilt packages afterwards.
>>>>
>>>> IMO, such as it is, there should be *less* in the base system
>>>> than there currently is and more in ports.
> 
>> I agree with Matt on this one, although that shouldn't be a surprise 
>> since I'm on record saying it often. :)
> 
>>> In this case there are some parts in base/ that could live in
>>> ports/ instead of the base directory such as hostapd(8), maybe
>>> nobody want to make a usable wireless access point?
> 
>> Unfortunately arguing to include something new in the base because 
>> something else that you don't agree with is already there is not a
>> valid method. The bar is a lot higher for adding things than keeping
>> things (for better or worse).
> 
>>> And what about bind too?
> 
>> As I've said many times, I'm ready to have it out when there is 
>> consensus to do so. The usual discussion goes like this:
> 
>> 1. Get BIND out of the base! 2. If we remove it, the command line
>> tools (dig, host, nslookup) go with it. 3. Oh, well, we like those,
>> so keep them, but get rid of the rest! 4. BIND is library based, so
>> 90% of the work to make the command line tools is building the libs,
>> after which building the server and its accessories is trivial work. 
>> 5. Oh, well, then make knobs to disable the server! 6. That's already
>> done. 7. Oh, well, never mind then *mumble mumble*
> 
>> However, all that is likely to change at some point in the future
>> (as in, years from now) when BIND 10 becomes the only and/or most
>> viable option since it requires a lot of stuff that we are unlikely
>> to ever import into the base (like boost, python, etc.). So there is
>> hope for you anti-BIND folks yet! :)
> 
> 
>> Doug
> 
> 
> This is where I say: I believe it would be the correct route to move
> toward a base package system for things like BIND DHCP... the common
> stuff that people would like to see in base but not really a
> conceptional sound idea.
> 
> My theory behind this goes like this: Make a base package for
> bind-server, bind-utils, bind-tools or whatever you want to call them
> with the --package-root defined as /. Do this for ports/lang etc... type
> of stuff and ship them with the install CD/DVD's. If the user wants the
> base port then there is no harm done and they can trivially add it. This
> would leave room for other base system options to include too without
> having to permanently move things in and out of base because supporting
> them in-tree does not make sense or other reasons.
> 
> Specifically I like this type of idea due to not needing to have a
> compiler (GCC) installed at all times. It could simply be added and
> removed from the base system by package or installed from ports and
> allow the end user to choose what they want when they want it. Stuff
> like GCC, BIND, DHCP Servers & other languages for this make sense. Why
> Not ?
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> PS: I'll coin this idea (base-board-ports)
> 
> .02
> 

This is also a conversation for another thread. So please do not let it
distract you.

-- 

 jhell,v
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"