On 4/8/2013 1:55 AM, Robert Simmons wrote: > On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 1:11 AM, Kevin Oberman <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Kimmo Paasiala <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Robert Simmons <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Bryan Drewery <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> On 4/7/2013 8:47 PM, Robert Simmons wrote: >>>>>> Are there plans to get the following ports moved into HEAD? >>>>>> >>>>>> 1) ports-mgmt/pkg >>>>>> >>>>>> 2) ports-mgmt/dialog4ports >>>>>> >>>>>> 3) ports-mgmt/portaudit >>>>>> >>>>>> 4) ports-mgmt/portmaster >>>>>> >>>>>> It seems to me like these belong in the base system. >>>>> >>>>> On the contrary, the idea is that more and more should come *out of >>>>> base* and into ports. Base is very static and stuck in time. By moving >>>>> these things into ports, you are able to get updates much simpler. No >>>>> need for an errata or security advisory or release. Just updating with >>>>> portmaster/pkg upgrade. >>>> >>>> I understand where you're coming from, but perhaps there needs to be >>>> movement in both directions. >>>> >>>> I may be way off the mark here, but I'd love to spark a discussion >>>> about this. I think that in general things that are directly FreeBSD >>>> projects belong in base. Examples would be pkgng, and making >>>> dialog4ports a switch in dialog(1). Essentially, code that does not >>>> have an upstream should be in base. >>>> >>>> On the other hand, there are a number of things that I think should be >>>> pulled out of base. Some already have ports, and others would need >>>> ports created. Examples of things to pull out of base are OpenSSL, >>>> Heimdal, OpenSSH, PF, ntpd, ipfilter, bind, sendmail, and others. >>>> Code that is typically way behind the upstream project basically. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> portaudit is not needed with pkg, just use 'pkg audit'. >>>> >>>> I had missed that. Thanks! >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Also, is there a reason why dialog4ports's functionality wasn't added >>>>>> to dialog(1) as a switch? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Bryan Drewery >>>>> bdrewery@freenode/EFNet >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>> I think Bryan already explained the reasons why pkg should not be in >>> base, it's an external tool that is not strictly required to get a bare >>> >>> bones FreeBSD system up and running. Including it in base you create >>> yet another maintainance burden and would slow down the development of >>> the ports/packages management tools. >>> >>> -Kimmo >> >> >> What people seem to miss is that putting tools into the base system >> strangles the tools. Look at the difficulty we have seen in updating >> openssl. perl was removed from base for exactly that reason. Once something >> is in base, it usually can only be updated on major releases and even then >> it can be very complicated. That is a problem for any dynamically changing >> tool. >> >> I would love to see BIND removed from base, but most of the things you >> listed really are hard to remove. I know that I don't want to try bringing >> up a new install of FreeBSD on a remote system without OpenSSH and that > > OpenSSH is the only one that doesn't follow the same pattern. It > seems that the port of it has been abandoned going on 2 years. It is > lagging far far behind 9-stable which looks like DES bumped to 6.1 and > HEAD has been bumped to 6.2p1.
This is my fault. I am working on updating it to 6.2 for after the freeze. > >> pulls in openssl. In the case of many tools, it really turns into a >> bikeshed. But i can see no reason to add any of the new packaging tools >> simply because it is critical that updates be possible far more often than >> is possible for the base system. >> -- >> R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer >> E-mail: [email protected] > _______________________________________________ > [email protected] mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]" > -- Regards, Bryan Drewery bdrewery@freenode/EFNet
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
