Date: Sat, 02 Aug 1997 20:35:28 +0100 From: Ade Lovett <ade@demon.net> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@dk.tfs.com> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org, stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports-current/packages-current discontinued Message-ID: <E0wujxY-00006R-00@genghis.eng.demon.net> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 02 Aug 1997 21:15:33 %2B0200." <1987.870549333@critter.dk.tfs.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Poul-Henning Kamp writes: > >In message <E0wujSG-00005W-00@genghis.eng.demon.net>, Ade Lovett writes: >>This seems to be something of an oversimplification. Whilst there >>are undoubtedly people who are much more likely to be better off >>running release (or perhaps -stable) code, there are quite a number >>of people who need features (SMP, for example) that are only present >>in -current. > >You know, I actualle don't see that as an excuse for running -current, >but if you insist, at least don't try to use that kind of argument >for trying to turn -current into -stable, OK ? I'm suggesting no such thing. What I am suggesting is that the 'base' FreeBSD system is now too big, and too complicated, for its own good. Perl and TCL shouldn't really be in the base system at all. Especially perl, given that it's version 4. Should I wish to install perl5, either direct from CPAN, or through ports, there's even no easy way to ensure that all traces of perl4 have been removed from my machine, which may (or may not) cause subtle problems in the future. Indeed, perl and tcl bring up an interesting discrepancy. If -current is containing newer versions of tcl than in -release or -stable, why isn't the same being done for perl? After all, now that perl 5 has been around for quite a while, and if perl is to remain part of the base system, shouldn't it be being incorporated into -current, with perl 4 being dropped? Having duplicate code, in the base system, and in ports, is just causing anguish all around. That much should be obvious :( Either perl belongs in the base system, or it doesn't. If it does, then the ports version should be killed off, if it doesn't, it needs to be removed from /usr/src. Similarly for tcl. Similarly for a whole host of other things. You (plural, not aimed at anyone in particular) can't have it both ways -- it just causes far too much grief in the long run. >>The problems come about when the base operating system contains >>components that really shouldn't be there at all. TCL, Perl certainly >>fall into this category, and there's probably quite a bit else which >>would be better off in either ports, or an 'additions' package. > >I consider "options" equally bad in protocols and operating systems. We already have "options". At install time I can choose to add a bunch of things to my machine should my heart so desire. games, proflibs, catpages, manpages etc.. Splitting up "bin" into two or more components, just in the same way that selecting "src" will offer sub-choices, depending on whether the binaries are absolutely definitely critical for system to run, or whether they are useful 'core' bolt-ons, doesn't seem to be too much of a change in direction. -aDe -- Ade Lovett, Demon Internet Ltd.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E0wujxY-00006R-00>