On 8 Apr 2013 08:55, "Robert Simmons" <rsimmo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 1:11 AM, Kevin Oberman <rkober...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Kimmo Paasiala <kpaas...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Robert Simmons <rsimmo...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Bryan Drewery <bdrew...@freebsd.org> > >> > wrote: > >> >> On 4/7/2013 8:47 PM, Robert Simmons wrote: > >> >>> Are there plans to get the following ports moved into HEAD? > >> >>> > >> >>> 1) ports-mgmt/pkg > >> >>> > >> >>> 2) ports-mgmt/dialog4ports > >> >>> > >> >>> 3) ports-mgmt/portaudit > >> >>> > >> >>> 4) ports-mgmt/portmaster > >> >>> > >> >>> It seems to me like these belong in the base system. > >> >> > >> >> On the contrary, the idea is that more and more should come *out of > >> >> base* and into ports. Base is very static and stuck in time. By moving > >> >> these things into ports, you are able to get updates much simpler. No > >> >> need for an errata or security advisory or release. Just updating with > >> >> portmaster/pkg upgrade. > >> > > >> > I understand where you're coming from, but perhaps there needs to be > >> > movement in both directions. > >> > > >> > I may be way off the mark here, but I'd love to spark a discussion > >> > about this. I think that in general things that are directly FreeBSD > >> > projects belong in base. Examples would be pkgng, and making > >> > dialog4ports a switch in dialog(1). Essentially, code that does not > >> > have an upstream should be in base. > >> > > >> > On the other hand, there are a number of things that I think should be > >> > pulled out of base. Some already have ports, and others would need > >> > ports created. Examples of things to pull out of base are OpenSSL, > >> > Heimdal, OpenSSH, PF, ntpd, ipfilter, bind, sendmail, and others. > >> > Code that is typically way behind the upstream project basically. > >> > > >> >> > >> >> portaudit is not needed with pkg, just use 'pkg audit'. > >> > > >> > I had missed that. Thanks! > >> > > >> >> > >> >>> > >> >>> Also, is there a reason why dialog4ports's functionality wasn't added > >> >>> to dialog(1) as a switch? > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> Regards, > >> >> Bryan Drewery > >> >> bdrewery@freenode/EFNet > >> >> > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > >> I think Bryan already explained the reasons why pkg should not be in > >> base, it's an external tool that is not strictly required to get a bare > >> > >> bones FreeBSD system up and running. Including it in base you create > >> yet another maintainance burden and would slow down the development of > >> the ports/packages management tools. > >> > >> -Kimmo > > > > > > What people seem to miss is that putting tools into the base system > > strangles the tools. Look at the difficulty we have seen in updating > > openssl. perl was removed from base for exactly that reason. Once something > > is in base, it usually can only be updated on major releases and even then > > it can be very complicated. That is a problem for any dynamically changing > > tool. > > > > I would love to see BIND removed from base, but most of the things you > > listed really are hard to remove. I know that I don't want to try bringing > > up a new install of FreeBSD on a remote system without OpenSSH and that > > OpenSSH is the only one that doesn't follow the same pattern. It > seems that the port of it has been abandoned going on 2 years. It is > lagging far far behind 9-stable which looks like DES bumped to 6.1 and > HEAD has been bumped to 6.2p1.
You need to get the idea out of your head that !base == "inferior in some way". Ports are an integral part of the OS, and base should be minimal. Chris _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
