Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On 4/19/16 7:39 AM, dan_partelly wrote: What should not happen is that this incremental step forward be blocked by those unwilling to hash out the next steps. -Alfred While incremental steps forward are great, how do you avoid situations like VNET, where a "good enough" enough

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

I don't think we need 100% consensus to proceed on anything and if I've learned anything from 20 years in this community is that forcing that issue does the community a huge disservice as well as turn off the code submitters. See my thread on the missed opportunities in threads, or if you

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On 19.04.2016 19:36, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > Why is this even happening in email? If folks want "the right solution" > then why aren't they submitting patches or pull requests to the pkg repo > (or where ever this is stored?). This seems counter-intuitive, but > really actually should be how

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On 19.04.2016 19:28, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: > 3. Have ~10 meta packages that just depend on sets of the 755 packages > and hide the internal details. This gives the user experience of (1) > with the implementation of (2), and is marginally more complex than either. How does it help Slawa with

issue with /etc/rc.d/mountd script

Greetings all. I saw something the other day on a machine running 10/stable (but the same code exists in -current), when it was rebooting. The machine acts as a NFS fileserver (to support diskless booting of a few test machines). It only has ZFS filesystems, and only has filesystems that are

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

> > What should not happen is that this incremental step forward be blocked > by those unwilling to hash out the next steps. > > -Alfred > > While incremental steps forward are great, how do you avoid situations like VNET, where a "good enough" enough implementation, usable in some

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

> > Look, take a look at history and the Linux kernel threads story and its > impact on FreeBSD. If you'd like I can talk about it. > Please, yes, I would love to hear about it. > -Alfred > > ___ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list >

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

Again, the point is that those objecting should put aside the time to implement what you (and I) are suggesting: I could live with: base-utils11.1 - ktrace uninstalled - tcpdump uninstalled + dd 11.1.1 (CVE-123412 fix) but not {700 packages ) dd 11.1.1 dd with CVE fix

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 07:27:52AM -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > Again, the point is that those objecting should put aside the time to > implement what you (and I) are suggesting: > > > I could live with: > > > > base-utils11.1 > > - ktrace uninstalled > > - tcpdump uninstalled > > +

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

It is very important to understand that a packaged base is extremely useful for those building any sort of distro or appliance distro. So although the concept of "user serviceable" is important, it's not just that. Such a change makes it easy for a distro or appliance making to cherry pick

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

Please, consider ops and admins, who must support old installations, often made by other, not-reachable, people, and stuff like this, Ops and admins such as myself are exactly the ones who will benefit most from base packages. Being able run to: 1) 'pkg audit' and see that base ssl has a

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On 04/19/16 10:55, Roger Marquis wrote: Please, consider ops and admins, who must support old installations, often made by other, not-reachable, people, and stuff like this, Ops and admins such as myself are exactly the ones who will benefit most from base packages. Being able run to: 1)

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On 4/19/16 7:47 AM, dan_partelly wrote: Look, take a look at history and the Linux kernel threads story and its impact on FreeBSD. If you'd like I can talk about it. Please, yes, I would love to hear about it. Sure, so back in late 90s, ~1999 sometime after Solaris released kernel threads

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

Well, this discussion has gone pretty far off of the rails. I am of course happy to make a patch that cuts this down to 10 packages, but that's not something that should be committed without agreement -- which we obviously don't have. It would have been good to have had meaningful discussion

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On 19.04.2016 17:33, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > I am also confident that we will very easily sort out how to make > "micropackages" or some such mechanism within at most 3 months after the > code lands. The reason why is because I already see some excellent > proposals for such mechanisms in this

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On 18.04.2016 22:14, Glen Barber 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

Re: Mis-use of BUS_PASS_ORDER_MIDDLE

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 2:53 AM John Baldwin wrote: > On Monday, April 18, 2016 11:10:12 PM Howard Su wrote: > > I noticed several places there are code like this, especially in some arm > > low level drivers. > > EARLY_DRIVER_MODULE(aw_ccu, simplebus, aw_ccu_driver,

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 08:18:48AM -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > 1) Graciously and rapidly accept steps forward and then contribute to > them. Anything else leaves you stagnant and worse for wear. > 2) Simple over complex. > 3) If something someone else did is working for someone, then copy

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On 04/19/16 11:22, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: On 04/19/16 10:55, Roger Marquis wrote: Please, consider ops and admins, who must support old installations, often made by other, not-reachable, people, and stuff like this, Ops and admins such as myself are exactly the ones who will benefit most

Re: Mis-use of BUS_PASS_ORDER_MIDDLE

On Tuesday, April 19, 2016 03:42:40 PM Howard Su wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 2:53 AM John Baldwin wrote: > > > On Monday, April 18, 2016 11:10:12 PM Howard Su wrote: > > > I noticed several places there are code like this, especially in some arm > > > low level drivers. >

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On 04/19/16 at 01:36P, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: > > > On 04/19/16 13:26, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > > > In message <1461096962.1232.32.ca...@freebsd.org>, Ian Lepore writes: > > > >> Oh yeah, now I remember: Because in freebsd, design is decided by a > >> race to commit rather than by

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: > > > On 04/19/16 13:26, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> >> >> In message <1461096962.1232.32.ca...@freebsd.org>, Ian Lepore writes: >> >>> Oh yeah, now I remember: Because in freebsd, design is decided by a

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 20:18:40 +0300, Lev Serebryakov wrote: > On 19.04.2016 19:28, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: > > > 3. Have ~10 meta packages that just depend on sets of the 755 packages > > and hide the internal details. This gives the user experience of (1) > > with the

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Tuesday, April 19, 2016, 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

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On 19.04.2016 23:10, K. Macy wrote: I don't like to see, as some participants of this thread write their messages as if somebody in this thread are against packaging base with pkg. I don't see anybody, who say "remove this packaging code, it is all completely wrong, BS, whatever". All

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

In message <1461096962.1232.32.ca...@freebsd.org>, Ian Lepore writes: >Oh yeah, now I remember: Because in freebsd, design is decided by a >race to commit rather than by discussion. No, that's not it. It is because code talks much louder than words. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

Hi! > I don't see anybody, who say "remove this packaging code, it is all > completely wrong, BS, whatever". All objections are against mechanical > splitting base to 700+ packages, not against packaged base per se. I also run a bunch of boxes, and I do not have a problem with 700+ base

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

Nathan Whitehorn wrote: Thanks, Roger. That seems perfectly reasonable. I'm not sure that goal is really met by having 800 packages, though, or at least I see no particular gain relative to a handful (where things like OpenSSL or sendmail would be discrete things). (Almost) every single

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On 04/19/16 13:26, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: In message <1461096962.1232.32.ca...@freebsd.org>, Ian Lepore writes: Oh yeah, now I remember: Because in freebsd, design is decided by a race to commit rather than by discussion. No, that's not it. It is because code talks much louder

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

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

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Tue, 2016-04-19 at 20:09 +, 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

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

It's cool. I have positive and negative reactions, and I'm totally happy to let people try it out at a larger scale and learn from mistakes. Because, honestly - fuck it, we've been behind for too long. We need more mature tools and knowledge with this. The irony of course is the people rolling

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Tuesday, April 19, 2016, Adrian Chadd wrote: > It's cool. I have positive and negative reactions, and I'm totally > happy to let people try it out at a larger scale and learn from > mistakes. > > Because, honestly - fuck it, we've been behind for too long. We need >

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On 04/19/16 20:15, Warner Losh wrote: On Apr 19, 2016, at 4:12 PM, Matthew Grooms wrote: 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

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 04:07:11 +, Glen Barber wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 06:59:38AM +0300, dan_partelly wrote: >> >> > >> > Sadly the tenor and tone of the discussion isn’t one where progress is >> > made. The tone has been a bit toxic and demanding, which grinds

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 09:15:47PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote: > > > On Apr 19, 2016, at 4:12 PM, Matthew Grooms wrote: > > > > 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

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

> On Apr 19, 2016, at 4:12 PM, Matthew Grooms wrote: > > 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

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On 04/19/16 21:07, Glen Barber wrote: On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 06:59:38AM +0300, dan_partelly wrote: Sadly the tenor and tone of the discussion isn’t one where progress is made. The tone has been a bit toxic and demanding, which grinds people into dust, rather than motivating them to fix

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Tue, 19 Apr 2016, Russell L. Carter wrote: What is missing from this debate is some perspective from the POV of actually existing packaging systems. I've been maintaining debian-stable + debian-testing systems for over 15 years. The number of packaging glitches I've had I can count on one

Use MAX()/MIN() macros in world.

Hey, As there is a kind of effort to clean up and do some cosmetic changes in our source base. I'm wondering if there is any objection to switch some codes to use MAX() and MIN() macros from sys/param.h. It will simplify code(readable), most of changes will be cosmetic changes and not

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On 2016-04-20 01:12, Daniel Eischen wrote: > On Tue, 19 Apr 2016, Russell L. Carter wrote: >> >> What is missing from this debate is some perspective from the POV of >> actually existing packaging systems. I've been maintaining >> debian-stable + debian-testing systems for over 15 years. The

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

> > Sadly the tenor and tone of the discussion isn’t one where progress is > made. The tone has been a bit toxic and demanding, which grinds people into > dust, rather than motivating them to fix things. You might call it a > discussion, but it reads to me more as a bunch of angry villagers

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On 20/04/2016 11:41 AM, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: On 04/19/16 20:15, Warner Losh wrote: On Apr 19, 2016, at 4:12 PM, Matthew Grooms wrote: 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

Re: qsort() documentation

On Tue, 19 Apr 2016, Aleksander Alekseev wrote: Why Wikipedia, specifically? There are a lot of places that describe quicksort. How about just Note: This implementation of qsort() is designed to avoid the worst-case complexity of N**2 that is often seen with standard versions. I

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 9:59 PM, dan_partelly wrote: > > > > > Sadly the tenor and tone of the discussion isn’t one where progress is > > made. The tone has been a bit toxic and demanding, which grinds people > into > > dust, rather than motivating them to fix things. You

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Wed, 20 Apr 2016, Julian Elischer wrote: my problem with 400 packages is that is is hard to decide what you are actually running.. or is it FreeBSD 11? is it FreeBSD 10.95342453? you have no way to tell exactly what you have without comparing all the packages to a known list. uname

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 06:59:38AM +0300, dan_partelly wrote: > > > > > Sadly the tenor and tone of the discussion isn’t one where progress is > > made. The tone has been a bit toxic and demanding, which grinds people > into > > dust, rather than motivating them to fix things. You might call it

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 05:37:00AM +0300, dan_partelly wrote: > Year after year you hear about new GsoC projects, then nothing. I find > it hard to believe that none of those actually produced any useful code. The goal of GSoC is to introduce new people to FreeBSD more than it is to produce

Клиентские базы тел +79133913837 Skype: prodawez389 Email: ammanakuw-7...@yopmail.com

Соберем для Вас по интернет базу данных потенциальных клиентов для Вашего Бизнеса. По базе можно звонить, писать, слать факсы и email, вести любые прямые активные продажи Ваших товаров и услуг Узнайте подробнее по тел +79133913837 (whatsapp,viber,telegram) Skype: prodawez389 Email:

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 20:09:30 +, "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

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 07:15:22AM +0300, dan_partelly wrote: > On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 04:07:11 +, Glen Barber wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 06:59:38AM +0300, dan_partelly wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > Sadly the tenor and tone of the discussion isn’t one where progress > is

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

> > "I've given your response all the consideration that I think it's due. > Please have > a nice day." Thank you, Warner. Knowing you did, brings warm feelings in my hearth. Please have a nice day. ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list

Re: Mis-use of BUS_PASS_ORDER_MIDDLE

Can we only load the bus driver that is required by timer or pic? Then you don't need worry about acpi_pci or pcib. John Baldwin 于2016年4月20日周三 上午3:26写道： > On Tuesday, April 19, 2016 03:42:40 PM Howard Su wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 2:53 AM John Baldwin

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

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

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On 4/19/16 1:09 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,

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

I am sorry to maybe sound like an old grudge here, but can somebody take a sweep at the bug reports filled against ports-mgt/pkg in the last year or so? Packaging base system is surely challenging and exciting task, and great bikesheed topic too, but there are lot of critical bugs in the code that

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

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,

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

* Adrian Chadd [160419 22:36]: > It's cool. I have positive and negative reactions, and I'm totally > happy to let people try it out at a larger scale and learn from > mistakes. right, thats what we have CURRENT for. Instead of discussing all the things that could

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

> > And nowhere did it say "buildworld/buildkernel would no longer work." > > Glen It may very well work, but you consider a listing of hundred of packages on a fresh system a sane default ? ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 08:41:29AM +, 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 +, Glen Barber wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 03:24:30PM +0800, Julian Elischer wrote: > > > > We've managed to

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

For what is worth, I agree with Julian Elischer. I do not want to see hundreds of packages over tenths of screen pages. Computers are supposed to make our life simpler. Human time is very expensive. CPU time, almost free. And this include that I really shouldn't have to think for usual work

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On 19/04/2016 3:14 AM, Glen Barber wrote: On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:01:46PM -0700, Sean Fagan wrote: On Apr 18, 2016, at 11:52 AM, Lev Serebryakov wrote: I understand, that maybe it is too late, but ARE YOU KIDDING?! 755 packages?! WHY?! What are reasons and goals to split

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On 19/04/2016 5:29 AM, Alfred Perlstein wrote: Guys please stop arguing about the number of packages. The high granularity is VERY useful! it's going to make us a laughing stock "look FreeBSD just split into 1.43 million packages" (effectively the same number.. it's bigger than 10)

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On 19 Apr 2016, at 08:44, Julian Elischer wrote: > >> All this can be done by meta-packages which depend on larger package groups. > Currently Metapackage is a way to make 10 packages look like 11 packages. > The framework needs to understand to hide the 10 internal

Re: qsort() documentation

> Why Wikipedia, specifically? There are a lot of places that describe > quicksort. How about just > >Note: This implementation of qsort() is designed to avoid the >worst-case complexity of N**2 that is often seen with standard >versions. I would say that this statement is just

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

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

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 08:17:12PM -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > Maybe what the "too many packages" folks need to do is write some code > to hide that it's so many packages. > > :) > > I think the rule of two feet should be applied here. > > What we have is people that have worked quite

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

Lyndon Nerenberg wrote on 04/19/2016 05:24: On 2016-04-18 8:17 PM, Alfred Perlstein wrote: Can someone on the "too many packages" campaign here explain to me how having too fine a granularity stops you from making macro packages containing packages? Because honestly I can't see how having

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

> Den 19. apr. 2016 kl. 03.24 skrev Lyndon Nerenberg : > > There aren't enough seconds in the universe to test all the viable > combinations for one single release. We don't even do that with the WITH_FOO/WITHOUT_FOO options now, so why should that be a criteria? You can

FreeBSD_HEAD_i386 - Build #2900 - Failure

FreeBSD_HEAD_i386 - Build #2900 - Failure: Build information: https://jenkins.FreeBSD.org/job/FreeBSD_HEAD_i386/2900/ Full change log: https://jenkins.FreeBSD.org/job/FreeBSD_HEAD_i386/2900/changes Full build log: https://jenkins.FreeBSD.org/job/FreeBSD_HEAD_i386/2900/console Change summaries:

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 11:39:11AM +0300, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 07:31:17AM +, 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.

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 08:54:48AM +0100, David Chisnall wrote: > 2) People wanting to install embedded systems. Anyone who has tried > to run FreeBSD on a system with a small amount of flash storage will > have encountered the pain of having to use some kind of ad-hoc > update. Being able to

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 07:31:17AM +, 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.

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 12:18:00PM +0300, dan_partelly wrote: > > be as terse as possible. You guys seen the "Add remove programs" > in Windows control panel ? Thats sane. Even now the default output > of pkg borders insane, when you have many packages installed. 99% of my > time > I dont

FreeBSD_HEAD_i386 - Build #2901 - Fixed

FreeBSD_HEAD_i386 - Build #2901 - Fixed: Build information: https://jenkins.FreeBSD.org/job/FreeBSD_HEAD_i386/2901/ Full change log: https://jenkins.FreeBSD.org/job/FreeBSD_HEAD_i386/2901/changes Full build log: https://jenkins.FreeBSD.org/job/FreeBSD_HEAD_i386/2901/console Change summaries:

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 12:27:51PM +0200, Lars Engels wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 12:18:00PM +0300, dan_partelly wrote: > > > > be as terse as possible. You guys seen the "Add remove programs" > > in Windows control panel ? Thats sane. Even now the default output > > of pkg borders

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

I dont know if you missed the point of my message on purpose or not. I never pretended that you can't extract that information. I maintain that having sane defaults would empower me to almost never care about aliases, scripts pipes, filter , regular expressions and what not. It is great that all