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?

From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 11:24:20 -0700 (PDT)

:On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 02:02:06 -0600
:Mike Porter <mupi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:> the question then becomes, why bother hiding those utilities at all?  
:> presumeably, the system is dependent on them in some way, and it seems
:> to me that there will be enough ports set up to use the systems
:> compiler, that you might as well assume that it is going to be there;
:> if you are going to do that, then why bother hiding it in the first
:> place?  the point is to eliminate GPL dependencies, unless you (the
:> user) specifically want it.
:I thought the point of hiding utilities was to eliminate conflicts:
:if A wants X 1.0 and B wants X 1.1 then A sees X 1.0 and B sees X 1.1
:regardless of how much X 1.0 and X 1.1 overlap.
:Same principle applies when A is the OS, B is the user, X is a compiler.

    I think 'hiding' might be too strong a term.  We aren't actually going
    to be hiding anything in the base system.  A VFS environment might
    hide something, but the base filesystem won't.  

    What we will almost certainly wind up doing is adding version suffixes
    to related directories.

    So, for example, instead of /usr/local/etc/apache we would have
    /usr/local/etc/apache1.23 and /usr/local/etc/apache1.24.  Then
    /usr/local/etc/apache could become a variant symlink.

					Matthew Dillon 

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