2015-09-17 23:35 GMT+03:00 Bernd Steinhauser <[email protected]>:
> I actually had the same question. > > On 17/09/15 21:39, Kylie McClain wrote: > >> On 09/17/2015 03:18 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> >>> What is the compelling reason that makes it worth spending any effort >>> on this? >>> >> I have a few, actually. >> >> 1. It allows for more choice with respect to core parts of the system. I >> wonder how quickly someone's going to crucify me for saying "choice" is >> a reason. I believe it is reasonable to provide this option, it's not >> that much different from how we provide the choice of libav over ffmpeg, >> or libressl over openssl. >> > Well, this is not Gentoo. We don't like to introduce options just so there > is an option. > Yes, this is not gentoo, but if we don't provide alternatives and options - Exherbo have not big difference compared to Archlinux. > > 2. Making the core of the system more flexible and interchangeable will >> allow for easier usage on systems with low memory, or any other system >> where usage of programs normally used on embedded systems is more >> desired than their heavier counterparts. >> > Terms like "heavier counterparts" are used quite often but there is no > reliable definition on any term like that. > And if people try to have a go at it, it very often proves them wrong. > I'm just saying that you should be very careful with using terms like that. > > Anyway. I'm totally against too much flexibility in the basic system. All > this will lead to is a long list of bugs and unforseen failures and > consequences. > It's different for libav/ffmpeg, as these don't belong to the basic > system, so changing them will result in a more/less pleasing multimedia > experience for people if it makes a change at all. And actually I think > that we should remove this one as well, as I've seen quite a few people > strongly advising against using libav (that was different some time ago). > For libressl/openssl it's different as well, as—to my knowledge—they are > compatible for any day2day use. > > I don't know if there are actually people building an embedded system > based upon Exherbo. If there are any, please step up and clarify if these > changes are necessary. > If space and memory consumption really matters to them, I suspect they > will make much more severe changes to the basic system than just replace a > few binaries. > >> >> This is actually my most important reason; the idea of having a single >> package that can provide a lot of the base of the system without much >> issue,s and take up less space than more full-featured is a very >> appealing idea. >> > Does anybody really care about space on an Exherbo system (serious > question)? > (We are talking about a few MBs here at most.) > I'm care. I'm use exherbo on production to host user vps, and i need to minimize base system , becasue all system goes to memory (diskless host server). SO i need to remove all unneded stuff. And i don't need to full featured compiler and other tools in such case. I'm prebuild all stuff on build host and use it. So please don't think that nobody cares. > > 3. In the same way that the multiarch change proved as a test to things >> like autotools, this can serve as a test to how alternative >> implementations are out there and work just fine. I'm going to use that >> phrase that everyone is probably tired of hearing me say now. >> Prevents monoculture. >> > And sounds like a pointless exercise. I'd leave that sort of thing to the > Gentoo guys and focus on things that are more useful. > > Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against using a different tool to work > with. I myself love zsh and I'm using that one instead of the standard > (bash). > But I would never even try to use it as a /bin/sh shell interpreter on > Exherbo or even to try to use it for cave (which I guess would mean a lot > of work). > If you like one tool more than another use that. If you want to have it as > a standard in your interactive shell, it's almost trivial to setup to shell > for that. But leave the system standard as-is. > In my opinion, we already have way too many alternatives modules. > > BR, > Bernd > -- Vasiliy Tolstov, e-mail: [email protected]
_______________________________________________ Exherbo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.exherbo.org/mailman/listinfo/exherbo-dev
