Re: Growing list of required(ish) ports
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Florent Peterschmitt wrote: > Le mardi 09 avril 2013 à 13:03 -0400, Robert Simmons a écrit : >> > Hum, I didn't thought about that. So I think it would be possible to >> > have a secondary « branch » for the distribution including something >> > like « special ports » which can be retrieved, built and managed (for >> > porters) quickly. >> > >> > Anybody think something like that is relevant and possible to do ? >> >> One thing to note is that these parts of base are kept just about as >> up-to-date as ports over in the HEAD branch. In the case of OpenSSH, >> HEAD is way way more up to date than ports. These changes are also >> fairly quickly MFC'd over to stable. The real hiccup is that these >> changes don't dribble out of freebsd-update. > > I see. So you suggest to use -STABLE ? Because -RELEASE is aimed to stay > as frozen (I mean stable and secured) as possible, it makes sens not to > have updates. No, stable is just another type of development branch. It is not meant for production use. I'm suggesting that enough testing and QA be applied to certain updates to be able to offer them as part of freebsd-update. Not sure if this is even possible. It may go against the philosophy of RELEASE and it would require resources that are in short supply as is. ___ 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"
Re: Growing list of required(ish) ports
Le mardi 09 avril 2013 à 13:03 -0400, Robert Simmons a écrit : > > Hum, I didn't thought about that. So I think it would be possible to > > have a secondary « branch » for the distribution including something > > like « special ports » which can be retrieved, built and managed (for > > porters) quickly. > > > > Anybody think something like that is relevant and possible to do ? > > One thing to note is that these parts of base are kept just about as > up-to-date as ports over in the HEAD branch. In the case of OpenSSH, > HEAD is way way more up to date than ports. These changes are also > fairly quickly MFC'd over to stable. The real hiccup is that these > changes don't dribble out of freebsd-update. I see. So you suggest to use -STABLE ? Because -RELEASE is aimed to stay as frozen (I mean stable and secured) as possible, it makes sens not to have updates. -- Florent Peterschmitt +33 (0)6 64 33 97 92 flor...@peterschmitt.fr signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Growing list of required(ish) ports
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Florent Peterschmitt wrote: > Le mardi 09 avril 2013 à 06:09 -0700, Darren Pilgrim a écrit : >> On 2013-04-08 10:22, Florent Peterschmitt wrote: >> > Yep, OpenSSH is tiny enought to keep it in base system. It would be a >> > big loss not to have it by default, securely installed in the base >> > system. >> >> I really wish it wasn't. Having OpenSSH (and thus OpenSSL) in the base >> means FreeBSD has an outdated version installed by default. You have to >> install openssl from ports in order to have modern cipher support, TLS >> v1.1/1.2, DTLS, etc. This puts two sets of openssl libs on the system >> and creates recurrent headaches with builds where the autoconfiguration >> selects the wrong set of libs. > > Hum, I didn't thought about that. So I think it would be possible to > have a secondary « branch » for the distribution including something > like « special ports » which can be retrieved, built and managed (for > porters) quickly. > > Anybody think something like that is relevant and possible to do ? One thing to note is that these parts of base are kept just about as up-to-date as ports over in the HEAD branch. In the case of OpenSSH, HEAD is way way more up to date than ports. These changes are also fairly quickly MFC'd over to stable. The real hiccup is that these changes don't dribble out of freebsd-update. ___ 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"
Re: Growing list of required(ish) ports
Le mardi 09 avril 2013 à 06:09 -0700, Darren Pilgrim a écrit : > On 2013-04-08 10:22, Florent Peterschmitt wrote: > > Yep, OpenSSH is tiny enought to keep it in base system. It would be a > > big loss not to have it by default, securely installed in the base > > system. > > I really wish it wasn't. Having OpenSSH (and thus OpenSSL) in the base > means FreeBSD has an outdated version installed by default. You have to > install openssl from ports in order to have modern cipher support, TLS > v1.1/1.2, DTLS, etc. This puts two sets of openssl libs on the system > and creates recurrent headaches with builds where the autoconfiguration > selects the wrong set of libs. Hum, I didn't thought about that. So I think it would be possible to have a secondary « branch » for the distribution including something like « special ports » which can be retrieved, built and managed (for porters) quickly. Anybody think something like that is relevant and possible to do ? -- Florent Peterschmitt +33 (0)6 64 33 97 92 flor...@peterschmitt.fr signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Growing list of required(ish) ports
> Ports are an integral part of the OS, and base should be minimal. > > > > For me, the only thing that should go to base is svnup. > > > +1 this, it is a real headache to not be able to svn up, without first installing a bunch of stuff via ports... I Love the idea of having a minimal system... i think sendmail, ssh, openssl, pf, and maybe even gcc(now that clang is default) should somehow go in ports... but i do think that the package files should be always kept up to date, and delivered on the install media, or bootstrapped in some way like pkg is.. -- Sam Fourman Jr. ___ 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"
Re: Growing list of required(ish) ports
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Darren Pilgrim wrote: > On 2013-04-08 10:22, Florent Peterschmitt wrote: >> >> Yep, OpenSSH is tiny enought to keep it in base system. It would be a >> big loss not to have it by default, securely installed in the base >> system. > > > I really wish it wasn't. Having OpenSSH (and thus OpenSSL) in the base > means FreeBSD has an outdated version installed by default. You have to > install openssl from ports in order to have modern cipher support, TLS > v1.1/1.2, DTLS, etc. This puts two sets of openssl libs on the system and > creates recurrent headaches with builds where the autoconfiguration selects > the wrong set of libs. > > I guess it would be possible to rename it to something autoconf misses, so ports have to use the ports-version? It enforces some redundancy, though I won't speculate on how much disk space it works out to. -- Daniel Nebdal ___ 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"
Re: Growing list of required(ish) ports
On 2013-04-08 10:22, Florent Peterschmitt wrote: Yep, OpenSSH is tiny enought to keep it in base system. It would be a big loss not to have it by default, securely installed in the base system. I really wish it wasn't. Having OpenSSH (and thus OpenSSL) in the base means FreeBSD has an outdated version installed by default. You have to install openssl from ports in order to have modern cipher support, TLS v1.1/1.2, DTLS, etc. This puts two sets of openssl libs on the system and creates recurrent headaches with builds where the autoconfiguration selects the wrong set of libs. ___ 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"
Re: Growing list of required(ish) ports
On 2013-04-08 08:26, Freddie Cash wrote: The really hard part is coming up with a migration path for those who upgrade via source builds. It already exists: 1. Update to release that doesn't include $thing; 2. make -C /usr/src delete-old delete-old-libs; 3. Install $thing or $thing_alternative from ports if you need it. Step 3 can be done before steps 1 and 2 thanks to FreeBSD having a sane filesystem hierarchy. ___ 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"
Re: Growing list of required(ish) ports
2013/4/8 Chris Rees : > On 8 Apr 2013 08:55, "Robert Simmons" wrote: >> >> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 1:11 AM, Kevin Oberman wrote: >> > On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Kimmo Paasiala > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Robert Simmons >> >> wrote: >> >> > On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Bryan Drewery >> >> > 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. > For me, the only thing that should go to base is svnup. -- Demelier David ___ 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"
Re: Growing list of required(ish) ports
Le lundi 08 avril 2013 à 17:40 +0200, Daniel Nebdal a écrit : > On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Freddie Cash wrote: > > Note: I may have messed up the quoting/attribution by snipping things. > > > > On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 10:11 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote: > > > >> On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Kimmo Paasiala wrote: > >> > >> > > 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. > >> > > > >> > > >> > 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. > >> > >> 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 > >> pulls in openssl. In the case of many tools, it really turns into a > >> bikeshed. But i can see no reason to add any of the new packaging tools > >> simply because it is critical that updates be possible far more often than > >> is possible for the base system. > >> > >> Moving OpenSSH, OpenSSL, etc into the ports tree, but making the pkgs > > available on the installation media, and having a final hook at the end to > > install "required" pkgs, would solve that. There's already a "do you want > > to enable OpenSSH daemon" question in the installed, so adding "pkg add > > /path/to/openssh-x.y.z.txz" wouldn't be hard. > > > > Same for bind, sendmail, kerberos, etc. For instance, just add a "daemon > > selection screen" for each bit removed from base, to select which ones you > > want installed as part of the OS install. > > > > The hard part comes in finding stub/clients for each item moved to a pkg, > > such that a desktop-oriented install is not hampered (ie, SSH client is > > usable, DNS lookups can be done, local mail can be generated/delivered, > > etc). > > > > The really hard part is coming up with a migration path for those who > > upgrade via source builds. > > -- > > Freddie Cash > > fjwc...@gmail.com > > > There's also the issue that OpenSSH is used for remote administration > - being able to do destructive things with pkg without worrying about > continued SSH-access is rather relaxing. With danger of entering > bikeshed territory, it's one of the things that makes FreeBSD more > relaxing than the Linuxes: You can blast every installed package and > still be fine - and a working sshd is a part of "fine" for me, since > it's kind of a requirement for doing anything else. > > Admittedly, my personal worst-case scenario is "drag a monitor and > keyboard to the other side of the room", so I will probably survive > either way. :) > > -- > Daniel Nebdal Yep, OpenSSH is tiny enought to keep it in base system. It would be a big loss not to have it by default, securely installed in the base system. > ___ > 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" -- Florent Peterschmitt +33 (0)6 64 33 97 92 flor...@peterschmitt.fr signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Growing list of required(ish) ports
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Freddie Cash wrote: > Note: I may have messed up the quoting/attribution by snipping things. > > On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 10:11 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote: > >> On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Kimmo Paasiala wrote: >> >> > > 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. >> > > >> > >> > 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. >> >> 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 >> pulls in openssl. In the case of many tools, it really turns into a >> bikeshed. But i can see no reason to add any of the new packaging tools >> simply because it is critical that updates be possible far more often than >> is possible for the base system. >> >> Moving OpenSSH, OpenSSL, etc into the ports tree, but making the pkgs > available on the installation media, and having a final hook at the end to > install "required" pkgs, would solve that. There's already a "do you want > to enable OpenSSH daemon" question in the installed, so adding "pkg add > /path/to/openssh-x.y.z.txz" wouldn't be hard. > > Same for bind, sendmail, kerberos, etc. For instance, just add a "daemon > selection screen" for each bit removed from base, to select which ones you > want installed as part of the OS install. > > The hard part comes in finding stub/clients for each item moved to a pkg, > such that a desktop-oriented install is not hampered (ie, SSH client is > usable, DNS lookups can be done, local mail can be generated/delivered, > etc). > > The really hard part is coming up with a migration path for those who > upgrade via source builds. > -- > Freddie Cash > fjwc...@gmail.com There's also the issue that OpenSSH is used for remote administration - being able to do destructive things with pkg without worrying about continued SSH-access is rather relaxing. With danger of entering bikeshed territory, it's one of the things that makes FreeBSD more relaxing than the Linuxes: You can blast every installed package and still be fine - and a working sshd is a part of "fine" for me, since it's kind of a requirement for doing anything else. Admittedly, my personal worst-case scenario is "drag a monitor and keyboard to the other side of the room", so I will probably survive either way. :) -- Daniel Nebdal ___ 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"
Re: Growing list of required(ish) ports
Note: I may have messed up the quoting/attribution by snipping things. On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 10:11 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote: > On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Kimmo Paasiala wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > > > > 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. > > 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 > pulls in openssl. In the case of many tools, it really turns into a > bikeshed. But i can see no reason to add any of the new packaging tools > simply because it is critical that updates be possible far more often than > is possible for the base system. > > Moving OpenSSH, OpenSSL, etc into the ports tree, but making the pkgs available on the installation media, and having a final hook at the end to install "required" pkgs, would solve that. There's already a "do you want to enable OpenSSH daemon" question in the installed, so adding "pkg add /path/to/openssh-x.y.z.txz" wouldn't be hard. Same for bind, sendmail, kerberos, etc. For instance, just add a "daemon selection screen" for each bit removed from base, to select which ones you want installed as part of the OS install. The hard part comes in finding stub/clients for each item moved to a pkg, such that a desktop-oriented install is not hampered (ie, SSH client is usable, DNS lookups can be done, local mail can be generated/delivered, etc). The really hard part is coming up with a migration path for those who upgrade via source builds. -- Freddie Cash fjwc...@gmail.com ___ 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"
Re: Growing list of required(ish) ports
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Robert Simmons wrote: > Are there plans to get the following ports moved into HEAD? > > 1) ports-mgmt/pkg > > The bootstrap code is in base. There's no need to tie the actual pkg development to the base, though. > 2) ports-mgmt/dialog4ports > > This is used by the ports tree, and only the ports tree, on all supported versions of FreeBSD. Thus, its development should not be tied into the base OS. > 3) ports-mgmt/portaudit > > This is not needed by pkg; pkg includes its own support for VuXML alerts. Thus, its not needed in the base. > 4) ports-mgmt/portmaster > > Portmaster works with the ports tree, and works on all supported versions of FreeBSD. Thus, there's no point in limiting its development as part of the base. IOW, these are all ports tree-related tools, which benefit greatly from being developed as part of ports tree development. -- Freddie Cash fjwc...@gmail.com ___ 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"
Re: Growing list of required(ish) ports
On 4/8/2013 2:57 AM, Michael Gmelin wrote: > On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 09:31:50 +0200 > David Demelier wrote: > >> >> For me I also wanted pkg to be in base but they made a bootstrap that >> does not need any other requirement so I stick with that and I'm >> happy. >> > > Last time I checked the bootstrapping mechanism installed an outdated > version of pkg (1.0.2 while 1.0.9 was current in ports). > Yes it was stale for a long time. It was updated to 1.0.11 a few days ago. >> >> Cheers, >> >> -- >> Demelier David -- Regards, Bryan Drewery bdrewery@freenode/EFNet signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Growing list of required(ish) ports
On 4/8/2013 1:55 AM, Robert Simmons wrote: > On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 1:11 AM, Kevin Oberman wrote: >> On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Kimmo Paasiala wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Robert Simmons >>> wrote: On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Bryan Drewery 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. This is my fault. I am working on updating it to 6.2 for after the freeze. > >> pulls in openssl. In the case of many tools, it really turns into a >> bikeshed. But i can see no reason to add any of the new packaging tools >> simply because it is critical that updates be possible far more often than >> is possible for the base system. >> -- >> R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer >> E-mail: rkober...@gmail.com > ___ > 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" > -- Regards, Bryan Drewery bdrewery@freenode/EFNet signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Growing list of required(ish) ports
On 8 Apr 2013 08:55, "Robert Simmons" wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 1:11 AM, Kevin Oberman wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Kimmo Paasiala wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Robert Simmons > >> wrote: > >> > On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Bryan Drewery > >> > 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"
Re: Growing list of required(ish) ports
> check it now, AFAIK now it is lattest Looks like it (1.0.11). Thanks. -- Michael Gmelin ___ 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"
Re: Growing list of required(ish) ports
On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 11:05:31 +0300 Kimmo Paasiala wrote: > > The outdated version is simple to update, that's the whole point of it > staying in ports. > > -Kimmo I understand this, but it should be easy enough to make the bootstrapping mechanism install the current version (otherwise you could just deploy pkg with base and let people update it themselves). -- Michael Gmelin ___ 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"
Re: Growing list of required(ish) ports
On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 09:57:02 +0200 Michael Gmelin wrote: > On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 09:31:50 +0200 > David Demelier wrote: > > > > > For me I also wanted pkg to be in base but they made a bootstrap > > that does not need any other requirement so I stick with that and > > I'm happy. > > > > Last time I checked the bootstrapping mechanism installed an outdated > version of pkg (1.0.2 while 1.0.9 was current in ports). > check it now, AFAIK now it is lattest > > > > Cheers, > > > > -- > > Demelier David > > ___ > > 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" > > > > > -- wbr, tiger ___ 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"
Re: Growing list of required(ish) ports
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Michael Gmelin wrote: > On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 09:31:50 +0200 > David Demelier wrote: > >> >> For me I also wanted pkg to be in base but they made a bootstrap that >> does not need any other requirement so I stick with that and I'm >> happy. >> > > Last time I checked the bootstrapping mechanism installed an outdated > version of pkg (1.0.2 while 1.0.9 was current in ports). > >> >> Cheers, >> >> -- >> Demelier David >> ___ >> 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" > > > > > The outdated version is simple to update, that's the whole point of it staying in ports. -Kimmo ___ 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"
Re: Growing list of required(ish) ports
On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 09:31:50 +0200 David Demelier wrote: > > For me I also wanted pkg to be in base but they made a bootstrap that > does not need any other requirement so I stick with that and I'm > happy. > Last time I checked the bootstrapping mechanism installed an outdated version of pkg (1.0.2 while 1.0.9 was current in ports). > > Cheers, > > -- > Demelier David > ___ > 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" -- Michael Gmelin ___ 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"
Re: Growing list of required(ish) ports
2013/4/8 Kevin Oberman : > On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Kimmo Paasiala wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Robert Simmons >> wrote: >> > On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Bryan Drewery >> 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 > pulls in openssl. In the case of many tools, it really turns into a > bikeshed. But i can see no reason to add any of the new packaging tools > simply because it is critical that updates be possible far more often than > is possible for the base system. BIND will be removed for sure (bapt@ told me that ;-)). I also think BIND should be removed because it's the principal reason why there are security advisories (almost all of them are BIND related). For me I also wanted pkg to be in base but they made a bootstrap that does not need any other requirement so I stick with that and I'm happy. I agree that is quite different from any Linux distribution where you always have a package management directly installed, but as some said above you can install a FreeBSD server and may not require any external packages or the server will not requiring installing external ports so that's probably why portmaster will never be put in base. Cheers, -- Demelier David ___ 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"
Re: Growing list of required(ish) ports
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 1:11 AM, Kevin Oberman wrote: > On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Kimmo Paasiala wrote: >> >> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Robert Simmons >> wrote: >> > On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Bryan Drewery >> > 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. > pulls in openssl. In the case of many tools, it really turns into a > bikeshed. But i can see no reason to add any of the new packaging tools > simply because it is critical that updates be possible far more often than > is possible for the base system. > -- > R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer > E-mail: rkober...@gmail.com ___ 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"
Re: Growing list of required(ish) ports
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Kimmo Paasiala wrote: > On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Robert Simmons > wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Bryan Drewery > 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 pulls in openssl. In the case of many tools, it really turns into a bikeshed. But i can see no reason to add any of the new packaging tools simply because it is critical that updates be possible far more often than is possible for the base system. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer E-mail: rkober...@gmail.com ___ 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"
Re: Growing list of required(ish) ports
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Robert Simmons wrote: > On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Bryan Drewery 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 stricly 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 ___ 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"
Re: Growing list of required(ish) ports
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Bryan Drewery 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 > ___ 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"
Re: Growing list of required(ish) ports
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. portaudit is not needed with pkg, just use 'pkg audit'. > > Also, is there a reason why dialog4ports's functionality wasn't added > to dialog(1) as a switch? -- Regards, Bryan Drewery bdrewery@freenode/EFNet signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Growing list of required(ish) ports
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. Also, is there a reason why dialog4ports's functionality wasn't added to dialog(1) as a switch? ___ 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"
