[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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.


Reply to: