Re: pkgsrc packaging of base?

["Simon 'corecode' Schubert" <corecode@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 09.02.2006, at 14:54, Eli Green wrote:
> > i'm opposing the packaging of base, yet i'd like to see file 
> > registration (also for what somebody might call "package":  sendmail, 
> > bind, whatever, basically what we have as WANT_* or NO_* already), so 
> > that stale files can be removed and unneeded parts not be built.
> What about making things like bind and sendmail packages? Even more
> relevant would be non-blessed versions of GCC in my mind since they're
> large, slow to download and compile and most people will probably stick
> with whatever's in base.

What is the gain?  Making stuff more complex for the user and more 
complex for the developers to handle.  Maybe we are talking about 
different things tho, and as long as nobody puts together a design 
proposal, we will continue to do so...

> I guess what I'm saying is that I also see disadvantages in slicing up
> "base" into packages, but trimming stuff from base doesn't seem like 
> too
> bad an idea.

I don't think we are talking about trimming stuff from base, we are 
talking about making things optional to install/deinstall, right?

> Is all of /src/games available as ports? Am I suggesting BSD blasphemy
> by suggesting not including "hack" as part of a base install? (note 
> that
> I'm sure as heck not suggesting dropping fortune...)

yes, you are.  what is the advantage of putting it somewhere in a dusty 
closet in the garage?  it can as well stay in our house, and the closet 
is at least being dusted off now and then...

cheers
  simon

--
Serve - BSD     +++  RENT this banner advert  +++    ASCII Ribbon   /"\
Work - Mac      +++  space for low €€€ NOW!1  +++      Campaign     \ /
Party Enjoy Relax   |   http://dragonflybsd.org      Against  HTML   \
Dude 2c 2 the max   !   http://golden-apple.biz       Mail + News   / \

Attachment: PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part