Re: Anybody working on removing sendmail from base?

[Mike Porter <mupi@xxxxxxxxx>]

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

On Wednesday 01 October 2003 09:00 am, Chris Pressey wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 02:02:06 -0600
>

> I thought the point of hiding utilities was to eliminate conflicts:
> if A wants X 1.0 and B wants X 1.1 then A sees X 1.0 and B sees X 1.1
> regardless of how much X 1.0 and X 1.1 overlap.
>
> Same principle applies when A is the OS, B is the user, X is a compiler.

OK I see that point, however, there is no 'real' hiding, since user B is free 
to choose X1.0 or X1.1 at any time, under the variant symlinks theory, simply 
by changing an environment variable (COMPILER=).  What I am arguing against 
is the idea that user B would not see X1.0 without explicitly installing it, 
even though it is already installed by your system.  The idea here is that 
the system doesn't really need a compiler in the first place, so if we remove 
is from our code base, only intalling X1.0 (the system compiler) if we want 
to do something like compile a custom kernel.  Granted among those on this 
list, it will turn out to be 'effectively mandatory' since I am relatively 
certain that everyone on this list will, in fact, want a custom kernel.  The 
same doesn't apply, however, to the 'general user'. (Plus of course, the fact 
that at this time, there is no real 'release' version of dfBSD.....)

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

iD8DBQE/ev0kY30jZzkECLcRAhnWAJ9DswL2RBBB3ERx+HjSvF5FNyzzSgCgoDfF
z+Gb2gAsi1QmEVxg7ohG9Gw=
=d9Jx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----