DRAGONFLY 1.2 RELEASED!
hmp at backplane.com
Sun Apr 10 08:05:41 PDT 2005
Seems to me that this is not a once-only job that can be finished, but a
process that is going to require a team of people who are willing to spend
time every day keeping up with the constant stream of updates from FBSD.
My real question is this: since maintaining a ports collection is not
a primary goal for DragonFly (but still important) why force such an
event at all? It's going to be drain on everyone's time for a gain
which is still not very clear to me.
Why not just pretend to be FreeBSD until such time as a proper ports
system can be created and maintained for DragonFly?
That will not help in the long run. As more ports and applications
break, they can get fixed upstream instead of introducing local
Secondly, pretending to be FreeBSD still leaves a problem for sysutil/
type ports where kernel interfaces are radically different. This will
be even a bigger issue when we drop libkvm for getting direct access
to kernel core/memory information.
To be honest, if pkgsrc use in DragonFly community is fruitful than I
would love to drop port overrides altogether so that all "patching"
efforts can be focused into one place.
Hopefully we are all on the same chapter.
More information about the Kernel