Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 00:09:47 -0700 From: Colin Percival <colin.percival@wadham.ox.ac.uk> To: Andreas Klemm <andreas@freebsd.org>, Christer Solskogen <solskogen@carebears.mine.nu> Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: strip FreeBSD a bit Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20030830235954.02dd9620@popserver.sfu.ca> In-Reply-To: <20030831065010.GA23179@titan.klemm.apsfilter.org> References: <3F5193E2.8060805@carebears.mine.nu> <3F50C956.70603@carebears.mine.nu> <20030830151544.G21642@znfgre.qbhto.arg> <3F5193E2.8060805@carebears.mine.nu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 08:50 31/08/2003 +0200, Andreas Klemm wrote: >IMHO I think its a good thing that a normal FreeBSD installation >includes bind and sendmail. This makes FreeBSD a complete >(standard/traditional) Unix after basic installation. I disagree. There's lots of important stuff in the ports tree -- cvsup, portupgrade, various languages -- which are pretty basic elements of FreeBSD these days. No sane person is going to be running just the base FreeBSD system except in very unusual circumstances. The ports tree may have once been a set of FreeBSD ports of software written for other operating systems, but it is now useful primarily as a packaging system. Ideally, things like sendmail and bind would be taken out of the base system, and sysinstall would offer people the option of installing sendmail/qmail/exim/portfix/nothing and bind/djbdns/nothing; for that matter, most things under contrib/ are probably good candidates for removing from base. The problem, of course, is actually getting it done. Colin Percival
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5.0.2.1.1.20030830235954.02dd9620>