RMS says: 'Use BSD, for goodness sake!'

[Paul Robinson]

On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 11:10:36AM -0400, James P. Howard II wrote:

> I freely admit to solving the problem half-assed, but it is more ass than
> anyone else has put into it :)

Wasn't meant as a criticism. :-) I suppose what I was trying to say was that
the whole thing needed to go BSD if the goal of moving to a non-GPL
environment was going to be met. I think dialog and other code with the same
"issues" will die by the time we get to 6.0 anyway...
 
> > I could really do with a dependancy map of FreeBSD right now. So, if it
> > was  moved out to a port, you don't think it would break anything? I'll
> 
> I think it will break gdb.

So, if it was made into a port/package and then made a dependancy when 
installing gdb, we're covered? Right, I won't re-build 3 worlds tonight 
then...
 
> I see where you are going with this argument, but no.  CVS should be in
> the base.  CVS is absolutely essential to FreeBSD.  Now, if you want to
> argue about which versioning system to use, that's another matter.

CVS is not essential to FreeBSD. It's essential to FreeBSD developers. There 
are plenty of people who use FreeBSD who will never, ever, ever use CVS in 
their lives. They could, and perhaps they should, but without wanting to 
bikeshed (I seem to get involved in a lot of bikesheds these days) I'd argue 
it belongs as an external package. But then, I'm with Jordan's original libh 
argument - EVERYTHING should be treated as a package. :-)

Funnily enough, I don't want to argue about which versioning system to use.  
I can think of far better ways to spend my evening here in sunny Manchester,
and 93% of them involve going to the pub.  :-)

-- 
Paul Robinson