Re: Re: Debian BSD.. cool idea
On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 08:39:56PM -0500, Jeff Sheinberg wrote:
> So, show me the port for sendmail.
sendmail is in the base OS. MySQL, which you used for your example, is
> The Debian package maintainer takes care of these `insignificant
> details'. Since there is no BSD port of sendmail, voila, no
> `insignificant details' to worry about.
Is there a Debian package for every last program? No, there is your
base deb which contains several. Your complaint is that FreeBSD's base
OS is too big. That is debated constantly.
> As soon as BSD removes sendmail from the base system, and makes it
> into a port there will be no `fork', and as long as one can then
> remove the sendmail port, or cleanly upgrade the sendmail port,
> and/or replace it with, eg, the exim port.
Is sendmail being in the base OS your only complaint?
> And just one other `minor' requirement to prevent a `fork' -
> remove the compile time dependencies from the base programs upon
> the currently installed BSD kernel.
The dependencies exist really only on programs that access procfs.
If you've got patches to help fix this, they'd be appreciated.
> Ironically, if you guys just thought about it a little, and
> cleaned up the current situation in BSD as I am suggesting, then
> BSD would be much better off for it. And then debian-bsd would
> just wither away and die.
I think that is what we are trying to do first.
> It seems to me that your definition of `fork' means any
> non-commercial use of BSD that is in any way different from the
> `official' BSD releases.
In which the source changes are not incorporated into both branches.