On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 01:18:44PM +0000, m...@netbsd.org wrote: > I don't like such changes because I think netbsd's base is bad at > handling software.
I disagree. With NetBSD's base system I get a consistent, fairly complete traditional Unix system. I find it comfortable and easy to use -- unlike, say, the default Debian install where tools like "ifconfig" are missing unless additional packages are added. > It bunches a pile of unrelated things in a single > tarball, garbage collection is done with a 2600 line shell script, and Better a 2600 line shell script than a half-a-dozen C programs and who knows which one does what and they all behave differently in edge cases (apt-get, apt, aptitude, synaptic, wajig...)! That said, to those who don't come from traditional Unix environments, perhaps the collection of stuff in "base" seems arbitrary. I believe it (plus some modern conveniences like a web browser) should all be installed by default, a few obsolete things should perhaps be stripped out, but that a more finely grained representation of its contents would be a very good thing. I mean, other very popular systems' base packagers can't even properly handle file ownership and permissions without truly nasty open-coded shell scripts burned into every package. Just by not being stupid, it seems to me here we end up ahead. I believe the right solution to the real problem here is, and always has been, syspkg. I think it's truly regrettable how we never finished the work and it basically bitrotted. It's not clear to me how much effort would be required to > adding just a single file requires me to add an entry to a set list > that requires a full release build to confirm (can take 8 hours on a > weak laptop). You don't need to do a full release build to check that you got the setlists right. You just need to do the "sets" step. This was part of my standard development workflow (on an anemic laptop, often on the train with little connectivity) for 6 years. -- Thor Lancelot Simon t...@panix.com "We cannot usually in social life pursue a single value or a single moral aim, untroubled by the need to compromise with others." - H.L.A. Hart
