On Sun, 10 Dec 2000, Andrew Brown wrote:

: >: If we're going to remote ANYTHING from basesrc, it probably ought to be
: >: RCS -- CVS no longer requires it, and most people use CVS for version
: >: controlling these days.
: >
: >I agree on RCS as well, and have proposed it before, meeting the response of
: >"well, we don't have a pkgized base system, so buzz off."  However,
: >technical arguments like these certainly weigh better.
:
: there are probably lots of things that meet this description.  all the
: games, for example.

Depends in part on both (1) how well these are externally maintained, and
(2) how long these have been historically in NetBSD and *BSD.  See below, as
well:

: fwiw, i use rcs all the time, and cvs almost never, hence, i am
: opposed to the idea of removing rcs from basesrc.  when working in a
: small group, rcs is fine.  removing both source code revision control
: systems from basesrc would be bad.

Filtering non-arguments, the prior discussion points against removing rcs
from basesrc were, in summary:

1. we don't have a pkgized base system;
2. sysinst is not capable of installing pkgs;
3. we don't build any particular packages as a release requirement;
4. rcs has been in-tree forever.

Point #1 actually supports moving rcs, as a pkgized base system partitions
rcs into its own binary tarball, which (as far as the installer is
concerned) could come from either basesrc or pkgsrc.  When this is done,
I'll likely bring up the prospect of moving rcs again, but I'm _not_
proposing that now.

Point #4 weighs only on the historic significance (and the lack of CVS in
the source tree in the past is why I don't think it should have been
imported in the first place).

The prior discussions basically resulted in this conclusion:  if we build
rcs as a release requirement, and sysinst can auto-fetch-and-install it, rcs
doesn't need to be in basesrc.

-- 
-- Todd Vierling <tv@wasabisystems.com>  *  http://www.wasabisystems.com/
-- Speed, stability, security, and support.  Wasabi NetBSD:  Run with it.