--n8g4imXOkfNTN/H1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 01:55:24AM +0300, Mindaugas R. wrote:
> Bill Stouder-Studenmund <wrstuden@netbsd.org> wrote:
>=20
> > > - I think a better abstraction is to separate third party application=
s,
> > > and provide packages. Putting the software into the source base requi=
res
> > >   additional maintaining, not vice-versa;
> >=20
> > I doubt that for this code. I agree that there are a number of apps for=
=20
> > which it could well be a problem. But not this one.
>=20
> Bill, it does not matter for "this" or for "that" code, I consider it as a
> wrong direction to go. Approach is to have a dynamic, flexible system wit=
h the
> packages and modules, not a single, huge, static base entity.

It sounds like what you want is syspkg, which isn't fully working yet.

I too would like to see it working. But it is an orthogonal question.

Take care,

Bill

--n8g4imXOkfNTN/H1
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFHFVdOWz+3JHUci9cRAkbCAJ0c8f3+/fPfemj6X0vPyeQgbLcYdgCfQHN2
lj2Ob72WMVoP98fJ9flMdGI=
=VF22
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--n8g4imXOkfNTN/H1--