Re: Pkg-based base system.

Richard Coleman wrote:
> > 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.

Yes, and nobody is suggesting removing anything from the base system,
merely making it easier for the end-user to remove unnecessary base
components.  Ramming bind, sendmail etc down everyone's throat because
it's historically BSD isn't a good idea.

> The fact that certain bikesheds come up frequently is an indication that 
> many people are interested in it.

In this case it's certainly not a bikeshed: Colin Percival posted a
very nice solution for registering base system components in the
package DB, while Ruslan said that a "make deinstall" target in the
base makefiles is planned.  These solutions will not require removing
anything from the base system and will not change anything for people
who like the BSD buildworld/installworld way.  But there is this
unfortunate tendency to dismiss any argument as a "bikeshed" just
because one doesn't like it.

Rahul