Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 19:04:35 -0500 From: "DaleCo Help Desk" <daleco@daleco.biz> To: "Michael Joyner" <mjoyner2@hq.dyns.cx> Cc: <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Getting some daemons out of the base system Message-ID: <035801c27d4c$700ef490$fa00a8c0@DaleCoportable> References: <3D9BF56A00005F55@cpfe1.be.tisc.dk> <1035675953.3dbb293141b3d@imp.hq.dyns.cx>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
From: "Michael Joyner" <mjoyner2@hq.dyns.cx> Cc: <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 6:45 PM Subject: Re: Getting some daemons out of the base system > Quoting dslb@tiscali.dk: > > > >-- Original Message -- > > >Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 19:31:06 -0400 > > >From: Michael Joyner <mjoyner2@hq.dyns.cx> > > > > >If we were to say move to a more modular styled base system, > > >we shouldn't have to REMOVE the daemons, simply have them > > >either easy to [x] check or [ ] uncheck as part of the installation > > >process. Or have a custom base installation option. Or minimial base > > >installation (ie no ISDN tools) . > > > > Well as long as I can chose NOT to install sendmail, I'll be happy. But > > I don't see the difference between having sendmail removed and having to > > select it. We select all the ports we want, why not just make sendmail > > another > > port (like qmail)? > > Because people like me DEPEND on certain options as part of the base system. > Sendmail is just one of those many options. > > Besides which, asking to have sendmail removed is asking to much. (IMHO) > Whereas having an option to not have installed as part of the base system > seems more digestable. :) > > Wonder if some people would think "it isn't UNIX without Sendmail..." ?? Just a thought, Kevin Kinsey To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?035801c27d4c$700ef490$fa00a8c0>