Re: Anybody working on removing sendmail from base?

[mark@xxxxxxxxxx (Mark Valentine)]

In article <3f784048$0$267$415eb37d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Justin C. Sherrill <justin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Instead of worrying about what path is being taken, and so on, it may be
>better to keep the system compiler, languages, etc. completely hidden from
>the user,

In particular, hidden from GNU configure, no matter where it pokes its grubby
fingers!

>perhaps with the VFS material Matt is talking about.  i.e. a
>system that has not had the gcc/tendra/Intel compiler port installed has no
>compiler at all, as far as the user is concerned.  

I can imagine having a package which comprises the "glue" to make the
invisible component user visible, probably installed by default.

An "upgrade" to this package could replace the glue magic with a full package,
making the system component "invisible" again, but still present for system
purposes.  (Of course, it should still be possible to upgrade the underlying
component, including an updated glue package.  Further points if the mechanism
allows migrating the old upgraded system version to a full non-system
equivalent package for the sake of installed dependent packages...)

I'm not sure yet how much I like this concept (it may be possible to achieve
the same thing without this special distinction and complexity, e.g. just
being able to specify reliably which of multiple installed versions of a
component to use as a dependency for the package you're building), but this
would certainly address some possible concerns about it.

In general we're aiming to decrease the distinction between base and ports
rather than add new mechanisms to differentiate them.  There has to be a
MUCH better mechanism in place than the current ports system to make this
work, however.

		Cheers,

		Mark.
-- 
"Tigers will do ANYTHING for a tuna fish sandwich."
"We're kind of stupid that way."   *munch* *munch*
  -- <http://www.calvinandhobbes.com>