> > imho, global (a fine software package) shouldn't have been in the
> > OS source tree anyway. To me, the proper place seems to be in the
> > ports collection along with many other development utilities.
> It seems that you misunderstand.
> Current GLOBAL(3.53 and earlier) is BSD-style licensed and it is true
> for ever. I agree with the plan to make a ports of GNU/GLOBAL in the
> future. But you need not remove BSD/GLOBAL from source tree.
Well, perhaps I am an extremist :-)
I am only an end-user, and not having commit priviledges anyway could
only submit a change request. So don't interpret my opinion as what
will actually be done. I haven't submitted a change request yet and
will probably hold off until a more authoritative consensus has been
reached.
My concern is mostly with the increasing size of the base src tree
and the intermediate files generated by make {world,release}.
In the interest of moving toward a more modular FreeBSD and smaller
base system, I believe that anything not absolutely essential to
make {kernel,world,release} should be moved to ports.
So even without the license change I would be in favor of moving
GLOBAL to ports. Ports is not a second-rate place to have a package
located, to the contrary, it often permits more active development
since fears of breaking make {world,release} do not exist there.
Best Regards,
Jerry Hicks
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
