On 19 Apr 2016, at 19:42, Matthew Grooms wrote:
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
I certainly agree that the distinction is changing, but I wouldn't say
it's being erased. In fact, I'd argue that a packaged base system will
clarify the conversation around the base/not-base dichotomy by forcing
us to think about the underlying distinctions rather than of the
delivery mechanism. For instance, I'd say that the biggest blurring
between base and ports doesn't come from packages, it comes from vendor
If the base system is "an atomic, maintained-by-us snapshot of all the
stuff you need to get a computer running and bootstrap your
applications"... well, first, stop me here if I'm wrong!
Assuming I'm not entirely wrong: we have lots of code in base that is
"built by the FreeBSD project" and entirely maintained by "us". However,
there is also a lot of code in base that comes from an upstream source
and is primarily maintained by "them" (who may overlap with "us"), yet
is essential to building or using the FreeBSD base system. This is a
necessity of modern life (compilers are good), and yet I'm not entirely
clear on the distinction between a lightly-patched compiler that lives
in our source tree and a lightly-patched compiler that lives in the
ports tree. So, now that the base compiler and a ports compiler will be
installed using the same tools, it might be worth thinking about how
they're really different (if at all).
Not that there are any good answers...
email@example.com mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"