> Right or wrong, you forgot: > > 5. BSD tradition. > > Case 5 justifies Fortran. > > Me, I'd rather have Fortran as a port. I'd even grudgingly accept > fortune as a port, as a matter of fact. Our base system is bloated. > While a lot of widely used programs are only available through > ports, a lot of obscure and obsolete stuff remains on our tree. They > are there because of 5. As long as 5 exists, Fortran belongs in the > tree. If we ever get rid of 5, then it's time to get the knife to > our tree... Or the axe, if the vikings decide to have the first cut. > :-) >
Whelp... I vote to break tradition. Hack away... The installer takes care of alot of stuff like ports installs. Perhaps different standard setups could be configured as ports. Ie. 'bloated setup' would require all the ports which are currently included. 'Server setup' port wouldn't have any Client stuff. 'Desktop' could install a 'nicer' windomanager (kde? gnome?) for teh user, and be pre-setup to start xdm, etc. The installer can currently install packages, so reworking those 'system install options' to fit simpler naming convention than 'Kernel Hacker, X user, X+ source, etc.' may be appropriate. I know.. lots of talk and no action. Oh well... my thoughts :) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
