DragonFly BSD
DragonFly kernel List (threaded) for 2003-10
[Date Prev][Date Next]  [Thread Prev][Thread Next]  [Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Anybody working on removing sendmail from base?

To: Mike Porter <mupi@xxxxxxxxx>
From: Hiten Pandya <hmp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:19:43 +0100

Mike Porter wrote:

: Speak for yourself. I have plenty of bandwidth on my cable modem, but
: precious little hard drive space. One of the major factors that attracts me
: to bsd over other free OSes is the fact that it will still run (quite well,
: in fact) on older systems. I have a 486 motherboard sitting around, and a
: 325 MB hard drive, and I can install BSD on it, and have a router/mail server
: that performs fairly well....even linux won't run on less than a pentium
: anymore; I can't get any of the 'major' distros to even install on my P1/MMX
: laptop with 32MB RAM, yet bsd installed without a hitch.

	Err, ok, let's not get side tracked here guys.  It's like to be
	"penny wise, and pound fool" -- it's the best way to put this.

	We cannot keep supporting the old 486s for very long, just
	because some 10% of the people still use it.  As new ideas
	and cocepts are developed, it will be harder to support old
	machine architectures like those.

	I am sure there will be a time in the history of DF where will
	drop support for old x86 machines, purely because they lack even
	the minimum of functionality.

: I know it goes against the grain to think about a "real" or unix-like OS
: shippig without a compiler, but at the same time, I know that there is no
: need to have a compiler built in to the base system.

	It might be good to remove GCC from the "source base", but it
	is not a good idea to nuke GCC for a release, because that
	just defies everything.

	If you mean remove from "source base", i.e. no longer maintain
	it in the CVS repo, then I agree, otherwise, I don't.  Our
	release framework needs to be restructured in a way that it
	will be able to fetch the required "third-party base utilities"
	from the net (at release-build time) and then apply any local
	patches we have.

The advantage of this is:

		1) We have a port system that can be easily modified
		   to do what I said above.

		2) We don't have to maintain the tools and GCC in our
		   source base (CVS)

3) Easily patch-able

		4) The built utilities are pulled into the final base
		   compilation at release time.

	At this stage, it would be possible to offer the release-makers
	an option to build a release with their own compilers, or even
	better, bundle a different compiler.

This just an idea, anyways.


Hiten Pandya

[Date Prev][Date Next]  [Thread Prev][Thread Next]  [Date Index][Thread Index]