[HEADS UP]: OpenLDAP+nss_ldap+nss_modules separated patch and
more (SoC)
John Baldwin
jhb at freebsd.org
Tue Aug 29 20:49:17 UTC 2006
On Saturday 26 August 2006 01:00, Robert Watson wrote:
>
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006, Peter Jeremy wrote:
>
> > IMHO, FreeBSD should move towards a more modular system - a minimal base
> > with most of the functionality in optional packages (or ports). Removing
> > uucp, games and perl are steps in this direction. I believe there should be
> > a very high bar on the import of functionality that is already available in
> > ports.
>
> One of the strongest historical arguments for using *BSD as the base for
> development of an embedded/appliance-style system has been that this is
> precisely what FreeBSD is not: by keeping a useful base set of applications in
> revision control, tested together, and integrated together, we provide an
> excellent starting point for building network appliances, storage appliances,
> ISP systems, etc. It's when you start having to deal with big piles of
> applications that aren't tested together, managed in a single revision control
> tree, and so on, that maintainability and complexity become problems for these
> users. I can tell you that if we ripped out BIND, sendmail, and a dozen other
> highly useful base system components out into ports, I would be using another
> system, because it is precisely this integration that makes FreeBSD most
> useful as a starting point :-). This isn't an argument for endless growth (or
> even significant growth) of the base system, rather, an argument for not
> abandoning integrated revision control and building of the current system.
Agreed. I also think LDAP would be a very useful thing to add. I know that
I currently use NIS/yp because it just works and is integrated into the base,
etc. I think adding LDAP as the logical successor to NIS/yp would be a good
thing.
--
John Baldwin
More information about the freebsd-current
mailing list