On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 08:41:29AM +0000, Glen Barber wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 11:39:11AM +0300, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 07:31:17AM +0000, Glen Barber wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 03:24:30PM +0800, Julian Elischer wrote: > > > > 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! > > > > > > > > > > What isn't clear about the *numerous* statements that no one is being > > > *forced* to use packaged base? > > > > Because nowhere present roadmap about co-existing packaged base and > > traditionsl install. > > Because nowhere present roadmap of packaged base future. > > Because package base is show-stoper for 11.0 relese -- this is read as > > "11.0 switch to package base". > > > > And nowhere did it say "buildworld/buildkernel would no longer work."
buildworld/builkernel is requrement for `make packages`. I am expect of removing installworld/installkernel. Yes, I am don read about this. But in IT I am need to read between the lines. Also, installkernel broken in 10.x for multiple kernels and not planed to fix. Why I need to expect different to this? _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
