On 4/19/2016 3:09 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
As far as I know, nobody is taking the source code or the Makefiles
away, so if somebody doesn't like the system being distributed with
pkg, they can very well roll their own.

It's nice to see the level of enthusiasm the FreeBSD project can
muster, I just wish it wasn't always enthusiasm for stopping progress.

Maybe I missed an email in this thread, but I don't recall anyone completely rejecting the idea of packaging the base system. What I see is a discussion related to doing it in the best way possible.

I suspect that most of the negative reactions people are having is due to the line being blurred between the base system and everything else. Historically there has always been a clear distinction. By packaging base and throwing it in with everything else, you erase that distinction. I suspect that if the 'base is different' concept was preserved in a more fundamental way, there would be less resistance. After all, is there that much difference between trusting freebsd-update to patch X files vs trusting pkg to update X packaged files?

What if there were two classes of packages, base and general? To interact with a base package set, perhaps an additional command line argument could be required. If you do a 'pkg info' after an install, an empty package set is shown. If you do a 'pkg info --base' ( or whatever ) instead, you see the base package set installed. If you need to get back to just the base system, you run 'pkg delete *' without the --base arg. In other words, base retains it's distinction and pkg pretty much works the same as it does now ( without the new argument ).

freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Reply via email to