Re: Intent To Split: netbase
On Thu, Aug 10, 2000 at 10:53:44AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> Decklin Foster <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > The argument for getting rid of all the stuff still lying around in
> > netbase is that once the package really is a dummy ``this-only-exists-
> > so-that-people-can-upgrade-easily'' package, then it can be removed,
> > getting rid of the dependency on what the user doesn't want to
> > install. Right now we can't do that, which I what I think Alex's point
> > was.
> This argument is silly. All this rampant "split everything up"
> attitude has to stop. Splitting up gnome-applets into dozens of tiny
> packages, splitting up netstd into many tiny packages, and splitting
> up netbase are all bad ideas.
> Netbase is barely 1 megabyte in size. This is not a huge package.
> Splitting it up results in a greater loss of utility (in terms of
> package namespace pollution, increased size of package databases,
> increased number of packages that users must wade through to get basic
> functionality of the system, etc.) than could be gained by doing so.
The old netbase installed, amongst other things, portmap.
Why would a standalone system (or indeed, virtually all systems not
using NFS) want something as evil as portmap installed and running?
Why would my home systems want inetd installed and running?
Remember, netbase is installed on virtually every machine with a 'nic or
a modem.... it included piles of stuff that were not appropriate for
many people and indeed could present security concerns. It also
confused things such as xinetd, where installing xinetd to replace inetd
wouldn't really replace it, just augment it.
Sure, it makes for a bunch of really small packages. Oh, well. It's
certainly better than starting up portmap on every debian box.
Brian Moore | Of course vi is God's editor.
Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker | If He used Emacs, He'd still be waiting
Usenet Vandal | for it to load on the seventh day.
Netscum, Bane of Elves.