-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Thu, 17 Sep 1998, Perry E. Metzger wrote:

>The intent is to put the CODA stuff in a separate set, so you need not 
>install it. However, having *unavailable* as a base set would seem to
>me to be a bad idea.

I've been thinking about this a lot lately.  I wonder if it would be
better in general to break up a lot of the installation sets into
smaller sets which users could pick and choose between.

More interestingly, it seems odd to have a distribution-set format
independent from our packaging format.  What if we had the concept of
`system packages' which installed under / and contained chunks of the
standard system install?  The `make distribution' target could then
package up the built system into packages which could be pkg_add'ed.
This would also let us use package versioning and dependencies to sort
out a lot of the complex interdependencies between parts of userland and
the kernel, and to make snapshots more formal (and easier!).

- -- 
				Jim Wise
				jwise@unicast.com


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv

iQEVAwUBNgFHi4kLDoBfn5jPAQFP8Qf9F34R4Ess+YLYS/q/WurPRrTdGVzWiFxp
dToGm8xPPCMvvEfPXvkjvyVI6IuFe1kxM7U68d4DspnXePQEzCoeaKPzl5gwB1+S
bdFdzdAyC4dbP954f51RkqxUlV2NMBDhmoP50j31psUGpA5PiaAf9Rda5aZ2HOjP
CRyxMreBgv8YtirWWqj+EfaE/T5jZI0//SIiuOW9BxLX1VWBq4X1YOeRy9t0HAe5
c+mejvFqQcNF/dxyd9XOwvfcIEC/8Iy+eSAXh6SZI9QVJfoyv3PqQBT9VgqEo7t3
ECRncCMngEZ4OMEMjvlWm2QxojtTTOFMD2Hj9J9ZotddNYhD2mh13g==
=XXvT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----