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

["Robert Clark" <res03db2@xxxxxxx>]

Would a new richer package nomenclature come
in handy for configuring how the kernel/userland/jail/lpar
pieces all fit together.

Kind of a netgraph for telling how to connect everything?

[RC]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chris Pressey" <cpressey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 12:32 PM
Subject: Re: Remove BIND, Sendmail, Perl and etc from base?


> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 20:45:33 +0200
> "Simon 'corecode' Schubert" <corecode@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > should the packaging system be completely contained in the base
> > system?
> 
> Well - if it's not in the base system, then it's ... um ... a package :)
> How is that circularity resolved?  Some sort of bootstrapping?
> Or is it just a simple tarball?  That seems inelegant, somehow.
> I think, on balance, I'd prefer for it to be in the base system.
> 
> > pure shell scripts do the job very well too.
> 
> I don't have much against 'make' (I have more objections with the *way*
> it's used, than the tool itself.)  But I could see shell scripts doing
> the job just as well, assuming they're generated by some tool which
> knows the dependencies and does the topological sort.  (That tool could
> be a perl/whatever script, run by the package author, and the end user
> installing the package wouldn't need perl/whatever installed.)
> 
> But also, considering that many, many ports come with their own (usually
> GNU) makefile anyway, the 'make' approach might not be worth throwing
> out.
> 
> -Chris