Re: Results of BIND RFC

On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 12:28:36PM +0200, sthaug_at_nethelp.no wrote:
> > [1]: FreeBSD really needs to move away from the "base system" as a
> > concept, as I've ranted about in the past.
> 
> Strongly disagree.

I'm with you!

> 
> > Or if it cannot, the "base
> > system" needs to start using pkg_* (somehow) for use, and src.conf
> > WITHOUT_xxx (where xxx = some software) removed.  Concept being: "I
> > don't need Kerberos; pkg_delete base-krb5.  I also don't need lib32;
> > pkg_delete base-lib32".  Beautiful concept, hard to implement due to
> > libraries being yanked out from underneathe binaries that are linked to
> > them.  But you get the idea.
> 
> This *might* be workable. However, in general - a large part of the
> reason why I use FreeBSD is that the FreeBSD base system gives me
> most of what I want, in *one* well defined chunk, *without* having
> to install a zillion extra packages, and without umpteen different
> versions of config files and locations for the important information.
> 

Also, more than that, won't splitting the "base system" in many smaller
pieces moving around by themselves make every single part of freeBSD a
moving target?

What I mean is that what may look like a way to simplify things could
make matters worse with incompatibilities in between the base packages.
having everythign in the base system guarantees much more control. I'm
also thinking about the nightmares this kind of splitting could cause to
release engineering.

This is not pure speculation. Such problems do appear in many other
known open source OSes with such a split base system.

In fact, if I wanted such a thing I'd install that other open source OS.
I did in fact, and observed many annoying things about not having a rich
base system like ours(like wasting time figuring which packet contained
commands I'm used to see in the base system on any unix.

> So please don't destroy this.

I hope not. Another good reason not to destroy this is again that there
are already many alternative OSes doing it, and I think FreebSD has a
strong point in being different, not a weak spot.

-- 
Guido Falsi <mad_at_madpilot.net>