Subject: Re: What about startup scripts??
To: Greywolf <email@example.com>
From: Nathan J. Williams <nathanw@MIT.EDU>
Date: 12/30/2000 17:23:49
Greywolf <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> The fact that they did it doesn't make it GOOD, either. It's a jumbled
> mess, to me.
What's a jumbled mess? Linux? Or that particular filesystem
arrangement? I can't tell what you're saying.
> So do that yourself, but <mantra>DON'T FORCE EVERYONE ELSE TO DO IT</mantra>.
You and I both have source, tools, and the ability to build a system
any damn way we like.
I'm going to be just as unhappy if we don't do this as you seem to think
you will be if we do. I don't think your opinion is particularly more
important than mine (or vice versa). So please stop shouting.
> I like knowing AT A GLANCE, withOUT having to go through the pkg database
> what's part of the base system.
> If it ain't part of the base, it doesn't belong in /, /usr. End Of
"The base" is going to become less and less well defined. At some
point the installer will just install a bunch of packages, and "base"
is merely a list of package names.
> Please take note that I am not telling people to go out and do things
> my way, but if you're developing for core and determining the flow of
> NetBSD, please make the merge you're proposing here an OPTION. I don't
> like it and one of the things NetBSD has thus far afforded me is
> flexibility to change what I don't like. Don't take that away.
You've got the code; you've got the freedom.
[One of the things that really annoys me about NetBSD these days is a
proliferation of trivial options, particularly in the build system
(things like the sendmail/postfix flags, NOFOO for many values of FOO,
etc). Dividing the universe into packages is a much saner way of
handling a lot of this mess.]