Growing list of required(ish) ports

[David Demelier]

2013/4/8 Chris Rees <utisoft at gmail.com>:
> On 8 Apr 2013 08:55, "Robert Simmons" <rsimmons0 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 1:11 AM, Kevin Oberman <rkoberman at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Kimmo Paasiala <kpaasial at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Robert Simmons <rsimmons0 at gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Bryan Drewery <bdrewery at freebsd.org>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> On 4/7/2013 8:47 PM, Robert Simmons wrote:
>> >> >>> Are there plans to get the following ports moved into HEAD?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> 1) ports-mgmt/pkg
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> 2) ports-mgmt/dialog4ports
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> 3) ports-mgmt/portaudit
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> 4) ports-mgmt/portmaster
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> It seems to me like these belong in the base system.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On the contrary, the idea is that more and more should come *out of
>> >> >> base* and into ports. Base is very static and stuck in time. By
> moving
>> >> >> these things into ports, you are able to get updates much simpler.
> No
>> >> >> need for an errata or security advisory or release. Just updating
> with
>> >> >> portmaster/pkg upgrade.
>> >> >
>> >> > I understand where you're coming from, but perhaps there needs to be
>> >> > movement in both directions.
>> >> >
>> >> > I may be way off the mark here, but I'd love to spark a discussion
>> >> > about this.  I think that in general things that are directly FreeBSD
>> >> > projects belong in base.  Examples would be pkgng, and making
>> >> > dialog4ports a switch in dialog(1).  Essentially, code that does not
>> >> > have an upstream should be in base.
>> >> >
>> >> > On the other hand, there are a number of things that I think should
> be
>> >> > pulled out of base.  Some already have ports, and others would need
>> >> > ports created.  Examples of things to pull out of base are OpenSSL,
>> >> > Heimdal, OpenSSH, PF, ntpd, ipfilter, bind, sendmail, and others.
>> >> > Code that is typically way behind the upstream project basically.
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> portaudit is not needed with pkg, just use 'pkg audit'.
>> >> >
>> >> > I had missed that.  Thanks!
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Also, is there a reason why dialog4ports's functionality wasn't
> added
>> >> >>> to dialog(1) as a switch?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Regards,
>> >> >> Bryan Drewery
>> >> >> bdrewery at freenode/EFNet
>> >> >>
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >>
>> >> I think Bryan already explained the reasons why pkg should not be in
>> >> base, it's an external tool that is not strictly required to get a bare
>> >>
>> >> bones FreeBSD system up and running. Including it in base you create
>> >> yet another maintainance burden and would slow down the development of
>> >> the ports/packages management tools.
>> >>
>> >> -Kimmo
>> >
>> >
>> > What people seem to miss is that putting tools into the base system
>> > strangles the tools. Look at the difficulty we have seen in updating
>> > openssl. perl was removed from base for exactly that reason. Once
> something
>> > is in base, it usually can only be updated  on major releases and even
> then
>> > it can be very complicated. That is a problem for any dynamically
> changing
>> > tool.
>> >
>> > I would love to see BIND removed from base, but most of the things  you
>> > listed really are hard to remove. I know that I don't want to try
> bringing
>> > up a new install of FreeBSD on a remote system without OpenSSH and that
>>
>> OpenSSH is the only one that doesn't follow the same pattern.  It
>> seems that the port of it has been abandoned going on 2 years.  It is
>> lagging far far behind 9-stable which looks like DES bumped to 6.1 and
>> HEAD has been bumped to 6.2p1.
>
> You need to get the idea out of your head that !base == "inferior in some
> way".
>
> Ports are an integral part of the OS, and base should be minimal.
>

For me, the only thing that should go to base is svnup.


--
Demelier David