From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 8 15:11:28 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D6BF6AF for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 15:11:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sthaug@nethelp.no) Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (bizet.nethelp.no [195.1.209.33]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A78CB2967 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 15:11:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 39123 invoked from network); 8 Oct 2013 15:04:44 -0000 Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (HELO localhost) (195.1.209.33) by bizet.nethelp.no with SMTP; 8 Oct 2013 15:04:44 -0000 Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 17:04:44 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <20131008.170444.74714516.sthaug@nethelp.no> To: bright@mu.org Subject: Re: rcs From: sthaug@nethelp.no In-Reply-To: <52541202.3010707@mu.org> References: <60177810-8DC4-4EA3-8040-A834B79039D2@orthanc.ca> <52538EDC.2080001@freebsd.org> <52541202.3010707@mu.org> X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: lyndon@orthanc.ca, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 15:11:28 -0000 > > I think the fact is that most direct users of RCS use it in a very > > simple way, and > > it works just fine for that. with no real need for any updates or any > > change. > > With all due respect Julian, The more we discuss this more this really > points to the problem that FreeBSD appears to be a challenge to install > packages into such that a package moving out of base is such a big deal. > > Can we fix that instead? > > I mean, this change should really not be a big deal, but yet it is and > this speaks to the core of FreeBSD utility. Not commenting on RCS here, but on the concept of moving packages out of the base: - For some of us, the attraction of FreeBSD is that it is a tightly integrated system, and the base contains enough useful functionality that we don't *have* to add a lot of packages. - Each package that is moved out of the base system means less useful functionality in the base system - and for me: Less reason to use FreeBSD instead of Linux. I absolutely see the problem of maintaining out-of-date packages in the base system, and the desirability of making the base system less reliant on GPL. I'm mostly troubled by the fact that there seems to be a rather strong tendency the last few years of having steadily less functionality in the base system - and I'm not at all convinced that the right balance has been found here. This discussion is not new, and I don't expect to convince any new persons... Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no