Re: rcs

On 10/8/13 8:26 AM, Andreas Nilsson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Alfred Perlstein <bright_at_mu.org 
> <mailto:bright_at_mu.org>> wrote:
>
>     On 10/8/13 8:04 AM, sthaug_at_nethelp.no <mailto:sthaug_at_nethelp.no>
>     wrote:
>
>                 I think the fact is that most direct users of RCS use
>                 it in a very
>                 simple way, and
>                 it works just fine for that.  with no real need for
>                 any updates or any
>                 change.
>
>             With all due respect Julian, The more we discuss this more
>             this really
>             points to the problem that FreeBSD appears to be a
>             challenge to install
>             packages into such that a package moving out of base is
>             such a big deal.
>
>             Can we fix that instead?
>
>             I mean, this change should really not be a big deal, but
>             yet it is and
>             this speaks to the core of FreeBSD utility.
>
>         Not commenting on RCS here, but on the concept of moving
>         packages out
>         of the base:
>
>         - For some of us, the attraction of FreeBSD is that it is a
>         tightly
>         integrated system, and the base contains enough useful
>         functionality
>         that we don't *have* to add a lot of packages.
>
>         - Each package that is moved out of the base system means less
>         useful
>         functionality in the base system - and for me: Less reason to use
>         FreeBSD instead of Linux.
>
>         I absolutely see the problem of maintaining out-of-date
>         packages in
>         the base system, and the desirability of making the base
>         system less
>         reliant on GPL. I'm mostly troubled by the fact that there
>         seems to
>         be a rather strong tendency the last few years of having steadily
>         less functionality in the base system - and I'm not at all
>         convinced
>         that the right balance has been found here.
>
>         This discussion is not new, and I don't expect to convince any new
>         persons...
>
>
>     I'm sure other devs will disagree, but with ~15 years of FreeBSD
>     experience and ~13 years as a dev, my very strong opinion is that
>     this tightly coupled system is actually a boat anchor sinking us.
>
>     Just because no one else does it a certain way, does not mean that
>     a unique way of doing something is correct and/or sustainable.
>      Maybe in 1995, 1999, or 2005 even, but not today.  Especially in
>     the context of add-on tools like rcs.
>
>     What we need to discuss is lowering the bar to making custom installs.
>
>     I personally find that installing FreeBSD is useless until I
>     install "screen, zsh, vim-lite, git" why is that so manual for me?
>      Why can't I just register a package set somewhere so that all I
>     have to type in is "alfred.perlstein.devel" into a box during the
>     installer and I get all my packages by default?
>
>     -- 
>     Alfred Perlstein
>
> You technically can. Make your own "meta-port" which depends on the 
> stuff you want. Build package-set with for example poudriere, ship 
> those packages on your install-media. Done.
>

Oh I have done that in the past, but why the editing, the makefiles, the 
etc, etc, etc.  Why isn't there a customize.freebsd.org where I just hit 
a few checkboxes, save and then hit download?


-- 
Alfred Perlstein