* Re: [9front] Ports Tree utilities inclusion into 9front
@ 2015-10-29 1:03 mveety
2015-10-29 1:27 ` Kurt H Maier
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: mveety @ 2015-10-29 1:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9front
> I'm not a priori opposed to this inclusion, but why not just put
> ports/ in your contrib, and then we can include it in the fqa?
>
> khm
Thats also a possiblity, but I would like a relationship similar to FreeBSD's or OpenBSD's
ports tree. All the tools are in the OS to use it, but the tree isn't by default. Also I
would like this to be a step towards removing shit (read acme) from the OS and shipping it
in the ports tree.
--
Veety
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [9front] Ports Tree utilities inclusion into 9front
2015-10-29 1:03 [9front] Ports Tree utilities inclusion into 9front mveety
@ 2015-10-29 1:27 ` Kurt H Maier
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Kurt H Maier @ 2015-10-29 1:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9front
On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 09:03:52PM -0400, mveety@mveety.com wrote:
> Thats also a possiblity, but I would like a relationship similar to FreeBSD's or OpenBSD's
> ports tree. All the tools are in the OS to use it, but the tree isn't by default. Also I
> would like this to be a step towards removing shit (read acme) from the OS and shipping it
> in the ports tree.
I mean, why not put the tools in contrib and just have a ports script
that brings them into the users namespace. This keeps the ports tools
development out of the base system... which is what freebsd and openbsd
should have done to start with >:(
khm
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [9front] Ports Tree utilities inclusion into 9front
@ 2015-10-29 17:57 mveety
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: mveety @ 2015-10-29 17:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9front
> I think I understand what you mean, but the tools to install software
> are already in the base system.
>
> sl
Ports makes it easier to fetch and build, and I think a method to fetch and install
software should be either in or basically in the OS.
--
Veety
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [9front] Ports Tree utilities inclusion into 9front
@ 2015-10-29 3:49 sl
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: sl @ 2015-10-29 3:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9front
> I'm definitely of the opinion that the tools to install software should be in the
> base system. Plus, if at some point, we would want to remove extra shit out of the
> base, the method to install them should be easily accessible without having to
> go somewhere else to get it.
I think I understand what you mean, but the tools to install software
are already in the base system.
sl
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [9front] Ports Tree utilities inclusion into 9front
@ 2015-10-29 3:17 mveety
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: mveety @ 2015-10-29 3:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9front
I'm definitely of the opinion that the tools to install software should be in the
base system. Plus, if at some point, we would want to remove extra shit out of the
base, the method to install them should be easily accessible without having to
go somewhere else to get it.
--
Veety
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [9front] Ports Tree utilities inclusion into 9front
2015-10-28 22:50 mveety
@ 2015-10-29 0:20 ` Kurt H Maier
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Kurt H Maier @ 2015-10-29 0:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9front
On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 06:50:33PM -0400, mveety@mveety.com wrote:
> I want the core ports tree[1] utilities added to /rc/bin/.
> It doesn't really have many users currently (I think) because it's hard for users to find and
> use. While I don't want the entire ports tree added, I would like the ports utilities
> (ports/setup, ports/install, ports/update) included into 9front with the manpage ports(8).
> This shit will be optional (you never have to use it), but it's there if someone needs it.
I'm not a priori opposed to this inclusion, but why not just put
ports/ in your contrib, and then we can include it in the fqa?
khm
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2015-10-29 17:57 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2015-10-29 1:03 [9front] Ports Tree utilities inclusion into 9front mveety
2015-10-29 1:27 ` Kurt H Maier
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2015-10-29 17:57 mveety
2015-10-29 3:49 sl
2015-10-29 3:17 mveety
2015-10-28 22:50 mveety
2015-10-29 0:20 ` [9front] " Kurt H Maier
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).