David O'Brien wrote: > On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 06:25:28PM +0100, Miguel Mendez wrote: > >>On Wed, 2004-03-17 at 12:09, David O'Brien wrote: >> >>>3. Sounds like you want Linux with its RPM's, not BSD. We consciously >>> don't wrap the base system in pkg_add tarballs. We generally LIKE the >>> entire system being a single integrated blob. >> >>Yes and no. Perl was removed from base, wasn't it? Anyone needing perl >>can install install it from ports (read: it's one of the first ports >>most people install). Why can't the same be applied to bind and >>sendmail? > > > Bind and Sendmail are traditional BSD components. The 'B' in "BIND" is > "Berkeley". Perl was never part of traditional BSD. Being present in > traditional BSD is one of the justficiations for having something in the > base system. If you don't want BSD, there are alternatives. I understand what you are saying, but "tradition" is not a very good technical argument. I suspect -current differs from BSD-lite in many fundamental ways. But I don't think anyone is advocating Linux-style granularity of packages. Most people just want a little finer granularity to handle bind, sendmail, dhcp, and maybe openssh. A large motivation for this is to simplify the process when an update is necessary due to security problems. For a large shop, it's much nicer to update 1000 ports, rather than do 1000 build/install world, mergemaster cycles. The fact that certain bikesheds come up frequently is an indication that many people are interested in it. Richard Coleman richardcoleman_at_mindspring.comReceived on Thu Mar 18 2004 - 00:55:08 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:48 UTC