Re: [HEADS UP]: OpenLDAP+nss_ldap+nss_modules separated patch and more (SoC)

On Saturday 26 August 2006 01:00, Robert Watson wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> 
> > IMHO, FreeBSD should move towards a more modular system - a minimal base 
> > with most of the functionality in optional packages (or ports). Removing 
> > uucp, games and perl are steps in this direction.  I believe there should be 
> > a very high bar on the import of functionality that is already available in 
> > ports.
> 
> One of the strongest historical arguments for using *BSD as the base for 
> development of an embedded/appliance-style system has been that this is 
> precisely what FreeBSD is not: by keeping a useful base set of applications in 
> revision control, tested together, and integrated together, we provide an 
> excellent starting point for building network appliances, storage appliances, 
> ISP systems, etc.  It's when you start having to deal with big piles of 
> applications that aren't tested together, managed in a single revision control 
> tree, and so on, that maintainability and complexity become problems for these 
> users.  I can tell you that if we ripped out BIND, sendmail, and a dozen other 
> highly useful base system components out into ports, I would be using another 
> system, because it is precisely this integration that makes FreeBSD most 
> useful as a starting point :-).  This isn't an argument for endless growth (or 
> even significant growth) of the base system, rather, an argument for not 
> abandoning integrated revision control and building of the current system.

Agreed.  I also think LDAP would be a very useful thing to add.  I know that
I currently use NIS/yp because it just works and is integrated into the base,
etc.  I think adding LDAP as the logical successor to NIS/yp would be a good
thing.

-- 
John Baldwin