RFC: etcupdate tool in base?
julian at elischer.org
Fri Jun 11 00:27:38 UTC 2010
On 6/10/10 1:25 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
> On 06/10/10 11:18, Julian Elischer wrote:
> | It does bring up the question (yet again) if we shouldn't
> | have something that is between base and ports..
> | the keep base from bloating too much bit to still indicate
> | that they are supported.
> This statement perpetuates the idea that somehow anything in ports is
> "lesser" than things that are in src, which frankly I'm way past being
> sick of. The ports tree is part of FreeBSD, period. If you don't believe
> me, try installing just the base without installing any ports, and then
> see how much work you're able to get done.
unfortunately it is true.
code in the base tree gets fixed by people making sweeping changes
but things from ports often do not. Ports are not installed by default
so you can't assume they are there.
Like it or not Ports are, no matter how little, second class citizens.
I do not belittle the importance of having them, just stating the
facts as I see them.
More information about the freebsd-current