Anybody working on removing sendmail from base?

[Mike Porter]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Monday 29 September 2003 03:08 pm, Chris Pressey wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 16:10:07 -0400

> Well, hang on: if this is done right, there's no waste.
>
> Say the OS is using gcc-2.95.4.  Say I want to install gcc-2.95.4 for my
> own use.  I tell the system to install gcc-2.95.4, it detects that it's
> already installed somewhere in the system, so it exposes it to me, and
> bang, its suddenly installed from my point of view.  I don't have to
> use any extra bandwidth or disk space.
>

There's still the wasted time while the program determines that the program is 
already installed.  Plus the logic necessary to determine this....

But you are right, such time would/should be pretty minimal.

the question then becomes, why bother hiding those utilities at all?  
presumeably, the system is dependent on them in some way, and it seems to me 
that there will be enough ports set up to use the systems compiler, that you 
might as well assume that it is going to be there; if you are going to do 
that, then why bother hiding it in the first place?  the point is to 
eliminate GPL dependencies, unless you (the user) specifically want it.


mike

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQE/eooEY30jZzkECLcRAknzAKCnCgk1KmisRwq2ulO0odP6EmV6rQCdHCuy
22E8Ihv8vITGgKUsQeVxqfU=
=2AWW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----