From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Oct 28 10:24:02 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id KAA17646 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 10:24:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from ravenock.cybercity.dk (disn33.cybercity.dk [194.16.57.33]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA17582; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 10:23:35 -0800 (PST) Received: (from sos@localhost) by ravenock.cybercity.dk (8.8.2/8.7.3) id TAA04298; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 19:23:54 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199610281823.TAA04298@ravenock.cybercity.dk> Subject: Re: Base tree bloating (Was: ex/vi version 1.79 now available for anonymous ftp.) To: regnauld@tetard.glou.eu.org (Philippe Regnauld) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 19:23:54 +0100 (MET) From: "Soren Schmidt" Cc: sos@FreeBSD.org, hackers@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <199610272132.WAA03470@tetard.glou.eu.org> from "Philippe Regnauld" at Oct 27, 96 10:32:12 pm From: sos@FreeBSD.org Reply-to: sos@FreeBSD.org X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25 ME8b] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk In reply to Philippe Regnauld who wrote: > > sos@FreeBSD.org (sos) ecrit/writes: > > > Actually I think NONE of them (tcl, perl?) belong in the base OS, but > > they are fine as ports (so are the new vi :) ) > > I tend to agree with you. I guess that now that there are several > Perl dependencies in the tree (killall, adduser, etc...), there's > really no way of making Perl optional (well, it COULD be made that > Perl and all those that need it be only installed if Perl is > checked at Install time -- call it 'mandatory packages' :-P ). > > As for tcl, well, I guess that having Perl already there made it a > 'come one, come all' policy -- something to be avoided. > > This is why, as much as I like Perl, importing Perl 5 should be put > off, if not permanently, at least for a while: as Ollivier Robert > wrote, 5.002 was bugged, 5.003 is a kludge, and 5.004 is not out > yet. > > Furthermore, that's 8 more MB in the BASE tree! I'm sorry, but > that's a LOT compared to the size of the minimal bin distribution. > > Perl 5 should remain a port. Amen!! > > We have been polluting our base tree with this stuff for too long, > > I think PHK's '/usr/src/contrib' policy is already a good step > towards 'modularity' (call it 'purity' if you like). Without > wanting to sound like Linux Slackware, what about install-time > selecting those distribs that are in the /usr/src/contrib ? Maybe a good idea, but we _need_ things like the compiler etc (boy do I wish a non-GNU compiler for Xmas, and yes I know about LCC)... > > and it seems we are getting a habit of more is better. Why do we have > > ports at all, hell put it all in the base tree, and I'll do a > > "back to basics BSD" for the purists to run... (nice idea btw)... > > More work towards modularity, i.e.: rewrite adduser et al in sh. > We don't need SosBSD :-))) I have looked at the perl junk we have in the tree, all of it could be rewritten in a very short time.... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Søren Schmidt (sos@FreeBSD.org) FreeBSD Core Team Even more code to hack -- will it ever end ..