Subject: Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc/net/mtr
To: NetBSD Packages Technical Discussion List <email@example.com>
From: Alistair Crooks <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 10/26/2001 10:32:02
On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 02:41:02AM -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> [ On Thursday, October 25, 2001 at 23:14:30 (+0200), Alistair Crooks wrote: ]
> > Subject: Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc/net/mtr
> > When this happens, I am not at all amused.
> Ah, but then you easily see the merits of doing planned builds of binary
> packages! ;-)
You assume that I have more than one box of that architecture.
For a lot of the more esoteric NetBSD architectures, that's simply
> (I personally always want to build everything from source, so I always
> roll my own binary packages, but I'm sure many folks would be well
> enough with just "official" binary packages, particularly if they were
> signed and assured to be of high integrity.)
Ah, good - I didn't receive any feedback when I implemented the digital
signatures, so it's nice to know that the mail made it out :-).
> > I don't know if I speak for anyone else here, but I could certainly
> > do without this extra baggage being installed.
> I never install any additional build tools on any of the systems where I
> don't do software development (eg. production mail servers, whatever).
That's a good precaution, given that you have more than one of the
same architecture. Using one of the more esoteric platforms for
routers or mail servers is another precaution I take. And removing
perl from DMZ hosts is another. Now do you see why I don't want
perl, m4 et al dragged into the build?