On 18.04.2016 22:40, Glen Barber wrote: > This granularity allows easy removal of things that may not be wanted > (such as *-debug*, *-profile*, etc.) on systems with little storage. On > one of my testing systems, I removed the tests packages and all debug > and profiling, and the number of base system packages is 383. IMHO, granularity like "all base debug", "all base profile" is enough for this. Really, I hardly could imagine why I will need only 1 debug or profile package, say, for csh. On resource-constrained systems NanoBSD is much better anyway (for example, my typical NanoBSD installation is 37MB base system, 12MB /boot and 10 packages), and on developer system where you need profiled libraries it is Ok to install all of them and don't think about 100 packages for them.
Idea of "Roles" from old FreeBSD installers looks much better. Again,
here are some "contrib" software which have one-to-one replacements in
ports, like sendmail, ssh/sshd, ntpd, but split all other
FreeBSD-specific code? Yes, debug. Yes, profile. Yes, static libraries.
Yes, lib32 on 64 bit system.
It seems that it is ideological ("holy war") discussion more than
technical one...
--
// Lev Serebryakov
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
