On 09/10/2010 19:14, jhell wrote: > On 09/10/2010 14:36, Doug Barton wrote: >> On 9/10/2010 9:54 AM, David DEMELIER wrote: >>> 2010/9/10 Matthew Jacob<m...@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-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"