On Fri, 19 Oct 2001, Lucio De Re wrote:

# On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 02:58:54PM -0700, Simon J. Gerraty wrote:
# >
# > I certainly would not.  Replacing pdksh with the real ksh is one thing
# > (though I find pdksh's emacs mode better - but I'm biased), but removing
# > ksh from the system would be unacceptable.
# >
# I'm sure NetBSD has been released without ksh in the past.  Ksh
# presently needs to be in the base distribution because as a package
# it would be hard to install as /bin/ksh.
#
# /usr/pkg/bin/ksh just doesn't cut it.  Nor does /usr/local/bin/bash
# which for a long time has been a bane to me.
#
# I hope there's work being done to make the package system able to
# install base programs.  In fact, the right approach would be to be
# able to _uninstall_ base packages as a start.  That would go a long
# way to unbloat NetBSD (no accusation intended - it _is_ an offer to
# help).

I disagree -- I think it should remain separate so that we _can_ tell
what's in the base system (/{,usr/}{,s}bin).

The bane is what's happened to Linux in which everything was munged
together.  A clean hierarchy is one of the major selling points of
NetBSD, IMO.  Linux, by comparison, looks enough like spaghetti
that one can pour sauce over it and call it lunch.

And the more I think about it, the more I actually like the idea
of being able to perform an old-fashioned install in the event that
sysinst breaks/doesn't work.  I remember when installing a system
meant reading the install documentation and following the instructions.

*It Really Wasn't That Hard.*

# ++L

				--*greywolf;
--
NetBSD: My Computer Runs!