On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 01:18:55AM +0000, m...@netbsd.org wrote: > To reply to your points: > > - Debian doesn't ship ifconfig because it considers it a legacy tool and > expects you to use 'ip'.
Yes, and they don't ship "netstat" because they expect you to use "ss", and they don't ship (insert age-old standard Unix utility here) because they grew up using MS-DOS and they still think feeling super cool for not running MS-DOS trumps any kind of user convenience or technical judgment. But I digress! > - We already have a package tool. Indeed we do. Reviving syspkg would let us integrate it better with the basic set of stuff we ship in our base system. > Do you think pkg_* are doing poorly on file ownership? I don't intend > to port apt-get. I think that the fact that we simply _don't_ get elementary things like file ownership wrong leads me to trust our tools much more than theirs. > - I assume the open coding of file ownership is because they provide a > working setup, whereas we expect users to configure things. I'm not sure at all what this means. To understand what a Debian package does I have to implement a parser for a Turing-complete language (actually, several, until they remove things like awk and sed from their default install); to understand what our system sets do I need 'tar' and what our binary packages do, approximately mtree. I know where my bread is buttered. > - Someone has been doing some recent stuff regarding syspkgs: > https://github.com/user340/basepkg Good. > I don't plan to do the work on making syspkgs, I just don't want to make > things worse by adding a full but mostly incapable browser in base. Captive-portal login is a very real problem. How best to solve it otherwise? Remember, small embedded systems (easily supported by adding additional sets using our existing framework) are within scope. -- 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
