On 19/04/2016 3:14 AM, Glen Barber wrote:
But I would have thought that to the logical mind, obviously the simle
statement "755 packages" is the wrong answer..
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:01:46PM -0700, Sean Fagan wrote:
On Apr 18, 2016, at 11:52 AM, Lev Serebryakov <l...@freebsd.org> wrote:
I understand, that maybe it is too late, but ARE YOU KIDDING?! 755
packages?! WHY?! What are reasons and goals to split base in such
enormous number of packages?
Just a guess, having done the same thing myself: it means that updates can be
This is exactly the reason, which has been answered numerous times.
more than 10 should be obviously wrong.
The only POSSIBLE thing that would make this an OK thing would be to
follow that statement with "But to the external user it's really 4
packages unless you elect to split one of them."
It would require that all 755 do *NOT show up* in the (standard) list
of installed packages.
Maybe they could show up in some other special list if you asked for
fine grained information.
We've managed to keep this disease out of BSD since I started to do it
in 1990. First we laughed/fumed at Sun's Solaris when they unbundled
the compiler. then we fumed at xorg when hey took a useful package and
made 190 odd packages out of it. Please don't force this on us!
email@example.com mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"