Re: Remove BIND, Sendmail, Perl and etc from base?

[Craig Dooley <cd5697@xxxxxxxxxx>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I definitely agree that the user system should be built using packages.  
People dont care about downloading a 300meg source tree and waiting an hour 
to get a new release.  Yes rpm systems are a hassle to upgrade, but debian 
has shown that you dont need source for a system.  Debian allows someone to 
do dpkg --get-selections > profile and have a list of programs to duplicate a 
current working system.  I like the environment idea to allow multiple 
instances of needed dependancies (it would fix things like debian with libpng 
or freebsd with freetype) but unless I am missing something, we're still 
gonna need a build system to create these packages.  Also, a database backed 
approach seems the easies way to conserve bandwidth and allow full updates.  
In my opinion, in the end, we should have a "buildworld" just rebuild all the 
base packages and update them that way.  People who care about the source can 
get it just as easily, and people that dont won't ever have to worry.  Also, 
will ports stay with just a new backend for building packages?  Will there be 
a new build environment?  A binary downloading frontend seems a necessity now 
also.  Just my thoughts


On Tuesday 22 July 2003 05:32 pm, Thierry Herbelot wrote:
> Matthew Dillon wrote:
> >     The eventual goal is to make *ALL* userland applications, including
> >     things like cp, ls, etc... all operate through the packaging system,
> >     and remember that it is the packaging system's goal to support
> >     installation of multiple versions of anything without conflict.
>
> oh no ! please !
>
> a fine-grained packaging system used for the core OS is just a pain : I'm
> fed up with DeathTrap or Mandrake or Suse or .... with their thousands of
> rpm's
> - how do you upgrade such a machine ? (with something intelligent like
> portupgrade ? but there are lots of oldish shared libs left behind)
> - how do you duplicate a machine ? (preferably with some automatic
> procedure) after living some time, it's very difficult to know the smallest
> set of base rpms you have to select to get the same install (with the other
> packages going in via dependencies)
>
> One big selling point of FreeBSD is the relative ease of configuration
> description : get the full OS, then add a smallish number of outside
> packages.
>
>         TfH

- -- 
- -Craig
cd5697@xxxxxxxxxx
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQE/HdJhYXswu1EOVs0RAj4iAJsHi+qRvm90VPGUpTzNbz0QZydCegCglkE3
3OgUeRMZaa5sq/OWVtMr7lY=
=lGnj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----