DragonFly kernel List (threaded) for 2003-10
Re: Anybody working on removing sendmail from base?
Mike Porter wrote:
: Speak for yourself. I have plenty of bandwidth on my cable modem, but
: precious little hard drive space. One of the major factors that
: to bsd over other free OSes is the fact that it will still run (quite
: in fact) on older systems. I have a 486 motherboard sitting around,
: 325 MB hard drive, and I can install BSD on it, and have a router/mail
: that performs fairly well....even linux won't run on less than a pentium
: anymore; I can't get any of the 'major' distros to even install on my
: laptop with 32MB RAM, yet bsd installed without a hitch.
Err, ok, let's not get side tracked here guys. It's like to be
"penny wise, and pound fool" -- it's the best way to put this.
We cannot keep supporting the old 486s for very long, just
because some 10% of the people still use it. As new ideas
and cocepts are developed, it will be harder to support old
machine architectures like those.
I am sure there will be a time in the history of DF where will
drop support for old x86 machines, purely because they lack even
the minimum of functionality.
: I know it goes against the grain to think about a "real" or unix-like OS
: shippig without a compiler, but at the same time, I know that there is no
: need to have a compiler built in to the base system.
It might be good to remove GCC from the "source base", but it
is not a good idea to nuke GCC for a release, because that
just defies everything.
If you mean remove from "source base", i.e. no longer maintain
it in the CVS repo, then I agree, otherwise, I don't. Our
release framework needs to be restructured in a way that it
will be able to fetch the required "third-party base utilities"
from the net (at release-build time) and then apply any local
patches we have.
The advantage of this is:
1) We have a port system that can be easily modified
to do what I said above.
2) We don't have to maintain the tools and GCC in our
source base (CVS)
3) Easily patch-able
4) The built utilities are pulled into the final base
compilation at release time.
At this stage, it would be possible to offer the release-makers
an option to build a release with their own compilers, or even
better, bundle a different compiler.
This just an idea, anyways.