Re: Third party apps in base [was CVS removal...]

On 12/3/11 11:02 AM, grarpamp wrote:
> Hi. I have many dependencies on CVS that I 'need' 'out of the box'.
> Yet at the same time, I would not mind at all if it went to ports.
> In fact, and from a general position regarding all third party apps,
> I encourage it.
>
> Mostly because they are not authored or maintained by FreeBSD. Yet
> they are integrated, often in ways that need work to remove and/or
> manage separately. Such as when the upstream drops a feature version
> and FreeBSD only drops security/stability patches.
>
> If a lighter method than ports is desired, all the third party apps
> have binary packages (/pub/FreeBSD/ports/packages/All). And even
> pkg_add can be skipped if that's too heavy. The bit of extra work
> at install time isn't much, especially when your install already
> does a bunch of scripted localization.

I have advocated for some time that there be different classes of 
packages.
"Primary" packages, which are guaranteed to be with the release or at 
most very near by,
and secondary packages which are fetched separately.
Primary packages would be maintained by the ports team, but would be
tested and included by the release engineers as if they were part of 
the base system.

There may even by room for other classes.

> And as an aside, with what to this writer seems to be the majority
> of the world moving to git... I think it should now properly become
> user/admin choice as to which to install from ports/packages/source.
> Rather than say, being equally agnostic/fair in the other direction
> by including them all to satisfy all whims.
>
> The only justified exception I see would be to include whichever
> one is used by the master repository itself, which today is SVN.
> And as a topic for another thread, I think even that should be
> switched to git within the next couple years.
>
> And as another topic for another thread... the same goes for the
> various current methods of source (and other) distribution of the
> FreeBSD project. I'd be quite happy to see rsync become authoritative
> and even replace all of them.
>
> Lastly, regarding baking and planning... making more use of the
> wiki to document the FreeBSD timeline would be interesting. While
> distant dates my not be known, features and dependancies usually are.
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-current_at_freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe_at_freebsd.org"
>