Re: Anybody working on removing sendmail from base?

[Mike Porter <mupi@xxxxxxxxx>]

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

On Monday 29 September 2003 05:15 pm, Mark Valentine wrote:

>
> 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.

This is why hiding a system complier from the user strikes me as  a bad idea, 
I see it as 'adding a new mechnism to diferentiate' base and ports.  In 
addition, it would appear to increase the odds of someone who might be 
redistributing something, accidentally redistrubiting something in a 
non-compliant manner.  If it appears, to the user, to not have a compiler at 
all, it would be entirely possible for someone to assume it doesn't have a 
compiler, and do some sort of binary-only redistribution, in violation of the 
GPL, without even realizing that he was doing so.  Granted, it is his 
responsibility to make certain, but I think we have a responsibility to make 
it very visible.

mike
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQE/eoz/Y30jZzkECLcRAl5cAKCB/ffs53aod0cDlInHS99rIOrp3ACfVj+e
F5HTXJrt0/h8Fau88AadIoY=
=bUVl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----