Re: make.conf options (was Re: package-like feature for the base distrib (was Re: FreeSSH))
Hi, From: Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group [EMAIL PROTECTED] I was not talking about things that constitute the "real" core of the distribution (kernel, basic libraries etc.). I was more thinking about "userland" stuff that is included in the distribution but might not be required by everybody. Sendmail for example is something I don't want since I user qmail. However I have to remove it by hand... Other examples are bind or perl. You don't need to install them. Just put these in make.conf. NO_SENDMAIL= true NOPERL=true NOGAMES= true It might be a good idea to support NONAMED, NOUUCP, and NONFS, defines in make.conf. Since some like to use Qmail, Postfix, SSH, and Kerberos V, like BUILD_PORTS='postfix ssh krb5 XFree86' in make.conf would fetch new copies of distfiles (if you don't have them), de-install old versions, build and install the listed ports each time a make world is performed. This is going in the right direction, but here is a question (and I don't have the answer). Is it so much more easier to create new compile time directive than to go the extra step and use packages where they are available ? For example "bind8" is available as a package. Why not have the base install process use that instead of using its own source ? After all the package system is good, and we should capitalize on it. For things that don't have an equivalent (yet) in the ports, then there are 2 approaches: - the component is "optional enough" that it could be made as a package - or it is really required, in which case it belongs to the core installation. By optional enough, I mean something that: (this is likely not complete) a/ is not required by everybody (UUCP, YP) nore by the kernel to run properly b/ does not rely on other kernel components to be built properly c/ ... Again, I think that "sendmail" definitelly falls in that category as well as "bind". As far as the BUILD_PORTS variable. This is a great idea... Again why not take it to the next level which could be to have a new "target" in the ports' makefile: something like "make pkg_update" which would go and build/install the new version of all the installed packages/ports ? If I can help moving things in that direction, I will hapily land a hand... Patrick. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: make.conf options (was Re: package-like feature for the base distrib (was Re: FreeSSH))
On Sun, 17 Oct 1999 11:55:21 -0400, "Patrick Bihan-Faou" [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: This is going in the right direction, but here is a question (and I don't have the answer). Is it so much more easier to create new compile time directive than to go the extra step and use packages where they are available ? For example "bind8" is available as a package. Why not have the base install process use that instead of using its own source ? Because one of the fundamental principles is that a default installation, with no third-party packages, should still be a complete system, and -- most importantly -- be able to regenerate itself precisely from source. Hence, the default system needs to contain *an* MTA (not necessarily sendmail, but that's not a question we want to reopen), and *a* name server (not necessarily bind, but there are no other choices). -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | O Siem / We are all family / O Siem / We're all the same [EMAIL PROTECTED] | O Siem / The fires of freedom Opinions not those of| Dance in the burning flame MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - Susan Aglukark and Chad Irschick To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: make.conf options (was Re: package-like feature for the base distrib (was Re: FreeSSH))
In message 011801bf159c$f80630e0$[EMAIL PROTECTED], "Patrick Bihan- Faou" writes: Hi, From: Pierre Beyssac [EMAIL PROTECTED] There are a _lot_ of pitfalls to this kind of approach, as I have discovered using Linux Debian. This would probably open a can of worms you have no idea of. IMHO, the single biggest mistake in Debian is the all-encompassing package system which can make your life miserable in no time. [...] I was not talking about things that constitute the "real" core of the distribution (kernel, basic libraries etc.). I was more thinking about "userland" stuff that is included in the distribution but might not be required by everybody. Sendmail for example is something I don't want since I user qmail. However I have to remove it by hand... Other examples are bind or perl. You don't need to install them. Just put these in make.conf. NO_SENDMAIL= true NOPERL=true NOGAMES= true It might be a good idea to support NONAMED, NOUUCP, and NONFS, defines in make.conf. Since some like to use Qmail, Postfix, SSH, and Kerberos V, like BUILD_PORTS='postfix ssh krb5 XFree86' in make.conf would fetch new copies of distfiles (if you don't have them), de-install old versions, build and install the listed ports each time a make world is performed. We could so far as having a INSTALL_SUID_root='su passwd ...', INSTALL_SUID_man='man', INSTALL_SUID_uucp='uuname uustat uux ...' options, just to name three, which would list all of the setuid binaries in FreeBSD. You would remove the ones you don't need from the list when you secure your system. Regards, Phone: (250)387-8437 Cy Schubert Fax: (250)387-5766 Sun/DEC Team, UNIX GroupInternet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ITSD [EMAIL PROTECTED] Province of BC "e**(i*pi)+1=0" To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: package-like feature for the base distrib (was Re: FreeSSH)
Hi, From: Pierre Beyssac [EMAIL PROTECTED] There are a _lot_ of pitfalls to this kind of approach, as I have discovered using Linux Debian. This would probably open a can of worms you have no idea of. IMHO, the single biggest mistake in Debian is the all-encompassing package system which can make your life miserable in no time. [...] I was not talking about things that constitute the "real" core of the distribution (kernel, basic libraries etc.). I was more thinking about "userland" stuff that is included in the distribution but might not be required by everybody. Sendmail for example is something I don't want since I user qmail. However I have to remove it by hand... Other examples are bind or perl. Basically I think anything that has an equivalent and/or an alternate installation method in/via the "ports" system should be registered with the rest of the packages. And, IMHO, package handling for general-purpose applications and package handling for the core system are a very different problem and should be handled in very different ways. Agreed. This is the key. The package/ports system is really great as is. The split between the distribution and the packages/ports is sometime annoying. Again I think this mostly concerns "userland" features that are not required for the core of FreeBSD. Patrick. -- MindStep Corporation www.mindstep.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
