On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 01:55:24AM +0300, Mindaugas R. wrote: > Bill Stouder-Studenmund <wrstuden%netbsd.org@localhost> wrote: > > > > - I think a better abstraction is to separate third party applications, > > > and provide packages. Putting the software into the source base requires > > > additional maintaining, not vice-versa; > > > > I doubt that for this code. I agree that there are a number of apps for > > which it could well be a problem. But not this one. > > 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 with 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
Attachment:
pgpUV5BO93H4_.pgp
Description: PGP signature