On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 1:11 AM, Kevin Oberman <rkober...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Kimmo Paasiala <kpaas...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Robert Simmons <rsimmo...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Bryan Drewery <bdrew...@freebsd.org> >> > 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. > 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: rkober...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
