On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, Patrick Bihan-Faou wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> > It strikes me that having the base system be slightly more decomposed
> > could be advantageous. It would be great to be able to do something like:
> >
> > pkg_delete lp
> > pkg_delete yp
> >
> > Has anyone done/tried this in the past, and if so, what was the
> > reaction? Or what do people think? I realize this sounds a bit like the
> > "everything is an rpm or dpkg" methodology from Linux, but as long as the
> > 'base' packages are handled automatically, then it shouldn't impose the
> > same inconvenience.
I just pulled -security and -stable from the CC.
I was talking with a friend of mine the other day about making FreeBSD
more modular. It would be great if the system were based on "packages"
(not like the ports tree, architectually like the current tree, but
organizationally like the ports tree).
You could have a "net" package (telnet, tn3270, ftp, finger, etc), an "nw"
package (which included all new Netware stuff), an xpg compatability
package (which has lots of things need for XPG compatability), the yp and
lp packages listed above are a good idea, and development package (gdb,
lint, etc), a mail package (mail, vacation, biff, comsat, sendmail etc)
a perl package, and anything else anyone else wants to abstract out. Then
make the "base" anything absolutely required to have an operational
system.
This has the benefit of allowing the tree to grow and include new
functionality and prevent software from being pulled out and stuck in
ports (things like stat, tn3270, are much more convient when then are in
the tree).
A more or less randomly thought out email message.
Jamie
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
