Today Michael Sierchio wrote:
There is an argument to be made that all such components of the "base"
system should be packages, and managed that way. That would
facilitate removal or addition of things like MTAs, Route daemons for
various protocols, etc. and permit them to be updated independent of
the base system. Too much is included by default in Base.
FreeBSD is a comprehensive OS, and most users still do appreciate this
feature.
I remember that we had also RCS tools in the base system, they got
purged (moved to the ports tree really), most users are fine with it,
but for managing single config files RCS is still the best-suited
versioning system. We still have ftpd(8), but it was almost removed,
there was a strong battle on the mailing list to preserve it. FTP
protocol is as old as BSD, but it's still valid and, so far not
deprecated. A similar story was with smbfs(5). The same probably applies
to RIP/RIPng.
What if we would better remove LLVM from the base if the system is
bloated ? LLVM needs frequent updates and keeping it in base is far more
risky in terms of system security than keeping RIP daemons. Why do we
still have odd tools like biff(1) in the base ?
On the other hand, for a significant share of the user base, the more
tiny the OS is, the better. The transition to PkgBase should fulfill
user needs, especially those, who want a minimalist OS. So please, go
ahead and switch to PgkBase if your FreeBSD system contains undesired
software.
Cheers
Marek
On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 1:01 PM John Howie <j...@thehowies.com> wrote:
I use RIP all the time. Removing it would be a pain. What is the
justification? Moving it to ports is an option, but now we have to
compile, distribute, and install it.
Sent from my iPhone
> On May 15, 2024, at 07:40, Tomek CEDRO <to...@cedro.info> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 4:20 PM Scott
<uatka3z4z...@thismonkey.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 09:49:27PM +0100, Lexi Winter wrote:
>>> (..)
>>> i'd like to submit a patch to remove both of these daemons
from src. if
>>> there's some concern that people still want to use the BSD
>>> implementation of routed/route6d, i'm also willing to submit a
port such
>>> as net/freebsd-routed containing the old code, in a similar
way to how
>>> the removal of things like window(1) and telnetd(8) were handled.
>>
>> I use RIPv2 for it's simplicity and small memory and CPU
requirements. It
>> has its place and shouldn't be considered "legacy" despite its
shortcomings.
>> It's not uncommon for vendors like Cisco to produce "basic"
feature sets of
>> IOS that do not include any link-state protocols.
>>
>> Anyway, I'm a user, albeit a small user, of RIP and wouldn't
object to its
>> removal from FreeBSD if there were a small footprint
alternative. I've used
>> FRR and VyOS a bit and they are overkill as replacements.
>>
>> Your email doesn't justify its removal other than to say you
are unconvinced
>> of the value of shipping it. As a user I definitely see the
value. I
>> understand that there is always a cost to providing code, but
that wasn't
>> suggested as a reason. All APIs, modules, utilities, etc. need
to regularly
>> justify their presence in the OS.
>>
>> If it must be removed, is there any way to fork the FreeBSD
routed and
>> route6d to a port? Or would that defeat the purpose of
removing it in the
>> first place?
>
> Yeah, where did that recent trend came to FreeBSD to remove
perfectly
> working code??
>
> There are more and more ideas in recent times like this.
>
> Architectures removal, drivers removal, backward compatibility
> removal. While basic functions become unstable and unreliable. Looks
> more like diversion and sabotage than progress.
>
> If anything is about to be moved out from SRC for a really good
reason
> it should be available in ports and not in /dev/null.
>
