Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 16:27:31 -0400 From: W Gerald Hicks <wghicks@bellsouth.net> To: Shigio Yamaguchi <shigio@tamacom.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: GNU GLOBAL Message-ID: <199909192027.QAA00678@bellsouth.net> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 20 Sep 1999 02:28:48 %2B0900." <199909191728.CAA01028@tamacom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > imho, global (a fine software package) shouldn't have been in the
> > OS source tree anyway. To me, the proper place seems to be in the
> > ports collection along with many other development utilities.
> It seems that you misunderstand.
> Current GLOBAL(3.53 and earlier) is BSD-style licensed and it is true
> for ever. I agree with the plan to make a ports of GNU/GLOBAL in the
> future. But you need not remove BSD/GLOBAL from source tree.
Well, perhaps I am an extremist :-)
I am only an end-user, and not having commit priviledges anyway could
only submit a change request. So don't interpret my opinion as what
will actually be done. I haven't submitted a change request yet and
will probably hold off until a more authoritative consensus has been
reached.
My concern is mostly with the increasing size of the base src tree
and the intermediate files generated by make {world,release}.
In the interest of moving toward a more modular FreeBSD and smaller
base system, I believe that anything not absolutely essential to
make {kernel,world,release} should be moved to ports.
So even without the license change I would be in favor of moving
GLOBAL to ports. Ports is not a second-rate place to have a package
located, to the contrary, it often permits more active development
since fears of breaking make {world,release} do not exist there.
Best Regards,
Jerry Hicks
wghicks@bellsouth.net
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199909192027.QAA00678>