From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from wopr.sciops.net ([216.126.196.60]) by ur; Wed Oct 28 21:27:53 EDT 2015 Received: (qmail 95104 invoked by uid 1001); 29 Oct 2015 01:27:49 -0000 Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 21:27:49 -0400 From: Kurt H Maier To: 9front@9front.org Subject: Re: [9front] Ports Tree utilities inclusion into 9front Message-ID: <20151029012749.GC92033@wopr.sciops.net> List-ID: <9front.9front.org> List-Help: X-Glyph: ➈ X-Bullshit: module cache factory dependency solution Mail-Followup-To: 9front@9front.org References: <78bee3eb1cb26a3e17ad321ffe042334@styx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <78bee3eb1cb26a3e17ad321ffe042334@styx> 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