Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 21:50:14 -0800 From: Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com> To: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> Cc: "Julian H. Stacey" <jhs@berklix.com>, Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CVS removal from the base Message-ID: <CAGH67wQ-K_4Ab7SGZQud8=3aQ40sCdQiFwsO%2B9UJDcDsV4m3kw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4EE8344C.2070509@freebsd.org> References: <201112140350.pBE3ns2M011225@fire.js.berklix.net> <4EE8344C.2070509@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:29 PM, Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> wrote=
:
> On 12/13/11 7:49 PM, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
>
> which brings up teh possibility of 1st class ports.. which are kept more =
=A0as
> part of the system..
> (sorry for sounding like a broken =A0record..)
*jumps back into the fray*
If it's something that isn't maintainable, because the upstream
package is too hard to follow across a major version release cycle, it
should be pulled from base. Otherwise, I'd say carry on as usual.
Otherwise, there really isn't any difference in package organization
from Linux; granted, I would still like to see granular definitions in
packaging metadata so one could pick and choose between base and ports
openssh for instance, but that's still a nicety that hasn't come true.
Thanks,
-Garrett
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAGH67wQ-K_4Ab7SGZQud8=3aQ40sCdQiFwsO%2B9UJDcDsV4m3kw>