Subject: Re: *BSD packages...
To: Jordan K. Hubbard <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com>
From: Matthew Orgass <darkstar@pgh.net>
List: netbsd-advocacy
Date: 11/27/1998 01:35:01
  by homeworld.cygnus.com with SMTP; 27 Nov 1998 06:35:07 -0000
	by doit.pgh.net (8.9.0/8.8.7/PGH.NET-02) with SMTP id BAA21434;
	Fri, 27 Nov 1998 01:35:01 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 01:35:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Matthew Orgass <darkstar@pgh.net>
To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com>
cc: netbsd-advocacy@NetBSD.ORG,
        FreeBSD advocacy list <FreeBSD-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG>,
        advocacy@openbsd.org
Subject: Re: *BSD packages...
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.3.96.981126221119.14635A-100000@doit.pgh.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.96.981127003020.20056A-100000@doit.pgh.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Thu, 26 Nov 1998, Matthew Orgass wrote:

>   IMO, this is the aspect that it would most benefit the *BSD community to
> agree upon.  If all three free BSDs (and maybe even BSDI) could adopt the
> same package system, then that would eliminate a large amount of
> duplicated effort and would in effect make the systems interchangable.
> Each BSD can already emulate all of the others, so what difference does it
> make to most users if the kernels are the same or different?  If there is
> one package repository and perhaps even just one install system, then *BSD
> will be much more unified then Linux will ever be even if the underlying
> systems diverge much further then they are already.

  Sorry to be the first person to reply to my own post, but I think I
should clarify a few things:

1) "systems interchangable" -- of course, this wouldn't be all that true
to begin with, as each would still have their owndevice drivers, etc.
However, most of these make it to all three sooner or later anyway.  But
the existance of a single package system (including the three systems)
would create *BSD.  The vast majority of package software will be mostly
or entirely common.  Even if there are system differences and not all
packages are available for all systems immediatly, the fact that they are
all in the same place creates the feeling of a single system.  The
majority of packages that are available on all systems could then be
called *BSD versions.  The ability to say that software is available for
Linux and *BSD and be able to point to *one* *BSD version (even if it
contains system depenencies) would be IMO an enormous psychological
advantage and would create quite a bit of system interchangability.  This
would also allow a common distribution (which would be wonderful for
developers trying to port software to *BSD).

2) Unity -- Furthermore, this would be a framework for futher merging of
the base systems.  Common sections of userland could be put in common
packages, as could any development of common defice drivers or such as
they appear.  Common code them benefits from three developer communities
while each system is free to concentrate on it's particular focus.  The
existance of a good method of unifying parts of the system is probably
enough to generate work on doing so, as there appear to be a number of
people in favor of at least some movement in this direction.  Unified
packges would allow as much similarity or difference as is desired by the
individual systems while creating the feel of a single *BSD.


Matthew Orgass
darkstar@pgh.net