Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 7 Dec 1997 12:20:27 +0200 (EET)
From:      Narvi <narvi@Haldjas.folklore.ee>
To:        Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>
Cc:        Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>, ports@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: 3.0 -release ?
Message-ID:  <Pine.BSF.3.96.971207112136.20840F-100000@haldjas.folklore.ee>
In-Reply-To: <19971207165932.28970@lemis.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

On Sun, 7 Dec 1997, Greg Lehey wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 05, 1997 at 08:04:13PM +0000, Terry Lambert wrote:
> >> The second thing I think we need to consider is that in the longer
> >> term, I can easily see a day where the ports and packages collection
> >> have grown to the point where decoupling them from the primary FreeBSD
> >> releases becomes essential in order that the "base system" remain
> >> reasonably priced.  This would also allow the ports collection to move
> >> at its own release schedule, perhaps doing only 2 - 3 releases a year
> >> and published in a format closer to Rich Morin's well known Prime Time
> >> Freeware for UNIX CDs (http://www.ptf.com/ptf/products/UNIX). They
> >> come with a nifty printed book containing alphabetized short
> >> descriptions so you can look something up quickly before wasting your
> >> time mounting the wrong CD, and I think the ports & packages
> >> collection should do exactly the same thing.
> >
> > I like this.  I think that there should be coordination with the
> > OpenBSD and NetBSD folks to make sure they are usable "out of the box"
> > for them as well.  It could become simply "The BSD ports
> > collection".
> 
> Great idea!  Yes, I've read the multitude of messages that have come
> in so far.  But you've missed one point: why don't we merge FreeBSD,
> NetBSD and OpenBSD?  Maybe BSD/OS as well?  After all, most people
> don't understand why there are so many BSDs anyway.
> 
> What, you say, they don't want to cooperate?  Oh.  So why should they
> want to cooperate on the question of the Ports Collection?
> 

Well, I see several reasons for it (and also differences in the issues) :

	a) Different platforms - if we know port X works on the other BSDs
	   on platforms A, B & C, we can be fairly sure that when the
	   FreeBSD port happens to that platform, we have a ports
	   collection that works there for sure.

	b) Having a larger amount of people who use the ports (and so also
	   test them) is only beneficial as the probability of getting rid
	   of bugs increases. It also increases the amount of potencial
	   people donating their time towards both porting and maintaining
	   ports.

	c) We don't need a grand cooperation like in the case of merging
	   two operating systems. Everyone can keep their utilities (tar,
	   md5, whatever) in the place they like. Everyone can keep their
	   defaults as they like. The ports collection is not about the
	   base OS-s but the things running atop of them.

> Sure, the Ports Collection would be easier.  It's less coupled with
> the kernel.  But does anybody out there really see all four (three?)
> teams getting together and coordinating the mess?
> 

No. But see above. 

> Greg
> 

	Sander

	There is no love, no good, no happiness and no future -
	all these are just illusions.






Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.971207112136.20840F-100000>