Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 00:47:30 -0500 From: Steve Ames <steve@virtual-voodoo.com> To: Glenn Johnson <gjohnson@nola.srrc.usda.gov> Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.ORG>, Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG, "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/contrib/isc-dhcp - Imported sources Message-ID: <20000629004730.A15014@virtual-voodoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20000629002926.A17817@gforce.johnson.home>; from gjohnson@nola.srrc.usda.gov on Thu, Jun 29, 2000 at 12:29:26AM -0500 References: <20000628101529.A63423@node1.cluster.srrc.usda.gov> <200006281721.KAA03680@john.baldwin.cx> <20000629002926.A17817@gforce.johnson.home>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jun 29, 2000 at 12:29:26AM -0500, Glenn Johnson wrote: > > Being a server platform does not mean that you have to ship with lots > > of servers, it means you provide a stable, well-preforming environment > > on which one can run those servers. > > Agreed, but some would say that FreeBSD *does* ship with a lot of > servers: sendmail, bind, sshd, rlogind, rshd, telnetd, ftpd, ntpd, nis, > nfs, uucp, ... I believe there has been discussion of removing sendmail from the base system and making it a port as well so that we can choose which MTA to use at install time. Then again I could be off on that. I would happily argue that some of the other standard daemons should become "packages" as well _EXCEPT_ that they are expected to appear on a BSD platform. > I just do not follow your logic. The other logic I do not follow is why > take a package that has the client and the server (isc-dhcp) and install > the client but not the server. That's a somewhat better question. The client is used to make installation simpler. I haven't looked at what code we actually keep in the source tree, but its probable that the server code is lurking in there as well. At that point it becomes pretty questionable why the server isn't just installed. *shrug* > In any event, I really do not care much about this issue of a DHCP > server but I do care about the apparent attitude of "If it was not in > BSD in the 80s then we do not want it now". Not so much we don't want it as there are a lot of things that are better as packages than being part of the base system. If it becomes part of our source tree we have to maintain it and its FBSD specific portions. As a package the actual developers can just do their thing and we can just install precompiled binaries or compile it in with a minor patch set in most cases. BSD (from the 60s up) defines a minimum set of applications that we expect to find. The source tree should have those. Any thing else is feature creep. -steve To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000629004730.A15014>