Re: cleanup-boot.messages+overhaul-install

On Sat 30 Apr 05 03:27, "/dev/null" <null_at_dnswatch.com> wrote:
> Another thing I *really* hate, is
> not knowing that installing this Word Proccessor will start this
> chain that ultimately installs an additional 750MB of Gnome $#it that
> I have absolutely no use for, and additionally installs another 350MB
> of Multimedia and related Sound servers, daemons on my system, when
> there isn't even a PC speaker hooked up to the thing. SO, I'd really
> like to figure out a better way to handle ports - both through
> Sysinstall and *hopefully* through ports as well.

I empathize with your frustration, but this is not an issue with 
FreeBSD, it's an issue with the way large desktop suites like Gnome 
handle dependencies. It's the same with KDE, and it's true whether or 
not you're installing it on FreeBSD, Slackware, Solaris or what have 
you. The concept behind these suites is that it should provide 
everything a "typical" desktop user would need, and everything is more 
or less bundled together - true, this concept originates with the 
Mac/Windows approach (more the latter), and I understand why people are 
loathe to accept such a concept on a *nix system, but in truth these 
desktops have accomplished higher adoption rates than would be possible 
otherwise, and they do contain many useful tools. And, honestly, that 
concept is also what's driving your proposal.

I'm not sure if you'd ever be able to change this, as the concept is 
driven by the respective projects' overarching philosophies. 
Personally, I'd *love* to be able to install KMail without having to 
install kdebase and kdelibs, not to mention the rest of kdepim, but 
trying to convince the KDE project to uncouple it from the rest of the 
project is rather like tilting at windmills. That being said, it would 
be helpful in some circumstances to know exactly what will be pulled in 
by installing a part of one of these suites (i.e., most of the rest of 
the suite, or at least its base and libraries), but that is already 
possible, if not readily apparent to a new user.

There are dependencies which are pulled in by large ports which 
sometimes do not need to be there to install the original needed port 
(dependencies recursing in odd directions), but in general ports does 
work very well for the large number of projects within it, and it does 
so without being needlessly complicated, though it does contain a lot 
of complexity. It does have some flaws, but the fact that it simplifies 
recursive dependencies (as much as it's allowed), and the ability to 
tailor individual aspects of it to my own needs through changing 
Makefiles and patches locally, is what keeps me using it. Local 
compilation allows for so much, but it can be needlessly complex, and 
ports makes all the parts come together, most of the time without 
issue, but if there is an issue it usually can be fixed. Plus, I plain 
like to compile apps locally ... call me crazy (wouldn't be the first 
time ;)

Just give me the tools and don't put a hood over the engine, I can 
handle the rest, which seems to be what drives FreeBSD and attracts 
people to it, and it's why I keep using it.

- jt