Deprecating base system ftpd

Well, they can remove ed today, too, if they want. Or one of the shells. I don’t think the decision for doing that would be no different.

And I highly doubt Python will go into the default install. Convenience for some people alone is not a valid reason, not today and not when pkg-base exists.
 
Well, they can remove ed today, too, if they want. Or one of the shells. I don’t think the decision for doing that would be no different.

And I highly doubt Python will go into the default install. Convenience for some people alone is not a valid reason, not today and not when pkg-base exists.
Whilst that is absolutely true, once they are just dealing with a meta-package, I believe this will be a lot more volatile than our current base approach.

ed is required for POSIX as far as I know. If the developers want to break this, then that is certainly their choice and they can turn FreeBSD into a mess. However I prefer UNIX-like operating systems. ;)

I am also not entirely sure if they will put base packages in /usr or just regress to spamming everything in /usr/local. It does open up for some really dodgy future decisions to be made.
 
ed is required for POSIX as far as I know. If the developers want to break this, then that is certainly their choice and they can turn FreeBSD into a mess. However I prefer UNIX-like operating systems. ;)
Well, I assume there will be several package sets to choose from, for example a “default set” for most normal users, a “minimal set” for embedded systems, and a “POSIX conformance set” for you that contains ed. ;) And it will be very easy to create your own installation set.
 
Well, I assume there will be several package sets to choose from, for example a “default set” for most normal users, a “minimal set” for embedded systems, and a “POSIX conformance set” for you that contains ed. ;) And it will be very easy to create your own installation set.
Heh I do hope so. I guess my concern comes from the fact that no Linux distro has done this and at this point FreeBSD is basically following them in this regard to little ratty packages.

Though on a positive note, we might see some sort of return of x-base again.
 
Well, I know that removing the openssh daemon from base would really be a real pain; as it would really make it significantly more difficult to do a headless install. Right now my server is headless, so the only way to get access is through ssh in; unless I scrounge up and drag a monitor and keyboard over to connect to the machine. Even then, the alternative is the installer have to somehow configure and install a copy of pkg tree and have the openssh pkg that installs too. That isn't any better than having openssh deamon as part of base.

As far as ftpd goes, I don't mind so much if gets removed from base, as long as it is available as a package. My thinking on that, is when you are initially configuring the machine, ftp isn't as big of a need (though helpful to grab a copy of the configurations from a central location).
 
What is the problem with adding packages during installation?
Convenience. I want the base system to contain exactly those things that I happen to use, no more and no less. Without the hassle of installing or maintaining packages. Ideally, there should be a single command "freebsd-update" that does all the updates, and that is easiest if all the packages I need are in the base.

If you didn't notice, that was meant as humor. Because the next sentence is: And I don't care about any of the other people.
 
Grinning started exactly here:
I want the base system to contain exactly those things that I happen to use, no more and no less.

And yes, this is the perfect description for almost any discussion about contents of base. And the perfect explanation for the direction it always takes. Heated polemics instead of technical arguments.
 
In all fairness, I am fine with ralphbsz's suggestion. Even if all the packages in base are specifically tailored for him, I would rather that even for my use-case. So long as base *is* a base rather than a scatty ever changing collection of packages.
 
I think sendmail & tcsh are there for historical reasons. And freebsd does not like to give up it's history even if it's became obsolete.

*BSD is what it is for historical reasons. Also UNIX is what it is for historical reasons. They could be much
better, but they are *BSD and UNIX. That "obsolete" programs could be better, but are good enough. And
much better things are not being done.

The idea of a meager base system, in which people select what they want from packages, may sound good,
but it means to renounce to have a standard complete system. The experience with Linux shows to
what chaos this leads. Yes, you can install packages in a Linux distribution to get something similar to traditional Unix, but there are now people that not even know how a Unix system looks like.

In many ocasions it is a nightmare not to have some expected small programs at hand.

To have a standard is an advantages.

Personally I think any server does not belong in base, including time-server ntpd or dns-server local_unbound , mailserver sendmail.

Absurd! Why to erase a program only because it is not the part that initiates the connection?


Well, they can remove ed today, too, if they want.

ed is very useful, if not as a normal editor, at least inside of scripts. But I know, ed is obsolete,
cool people prefer to put emacs in their scripts, emacs is better. And desktop users do not write
scripts, then better delete ed anyway.
 
"meager" never sounds good, you serial word abuser.
Hah, in that link it defines "meager" as:

"having little flesh"

Sounds like a typical "base" Linux distro to me. So I think it is fair :D

If you install Debian that is pretty much what you have. I don't believe even wpa_supplicant is there unless you install a random meta package called "standard system utilities".
 
When is this sort of stuff going to stop, seriously? Are we to see the demise of dd? mkfile? clang?

When there's a base system that takes 10 minutes to install then 30 minutes of adding packages you've basically become Gnu/systemd/linux.

Core needs to pull their head in. Focus on preventing big stuff ups like wireguard and less on trimming freebsd down to just a kernel.

They seem to have lost the plot.
 
Heated polemics instead of technical arguments.
Getting hotter ;)

And FWIW, there are always people panicking about any attempt to improve things. This can get very exhausting.

pkg-base won't change anything about having a stable base with release engineering. It won't change anything about having all base integrated in one repository. It won't even stop you from building it all at once from the source tree (or, installing it that way).

All it will do is enable to build packages from base, thus bringing a feature to users of binary releases I'm using for a long time from source: Leave out stuff I personally don't need.
 
When is this sort of stuff going to stop, seriously? Are we to see the demise of dd? mkfile? clang?
Seriously – dd is required by the standard boot procedure (e.g. stuff in /etc/rc.d), so it can’t be optional. The same holds true for many other standard utilities.

mkfile I don’t know; I don’t have a program with that name on my FreeBSD machine.

And clang – well, why shouldn’t it be optional? If a non-developer installs FreeBSD for normal use, clang would be a waste of space. In fact, when I install FreeBSD on a space-constrained machine, I remove the compiler tool chain, static libraries, include files and several other things. It would make sense to be able to de-select these in the installer if you don’t need them.

As far as the famous ed(1) is concerned, nothing in the current base system requires it. The existing scripts use sed, awk, grep, cut, tr etc.

By the way, note that the source-level build system of FreeBSD (a.k.a. “make world”) already supports selecting / de-selecting several components of the base system via src.conf(5). For example, it supports de-selecting clang, so it will build and install a base system that does not contain clang.
 
Right, so strip EVERYTHING out that isn't used for the boot process and then watch your small userbase dwindle even further? Idiocracy is the new method of running FreeBSD?

It's absurd and reduces FreeBSD to a kernel. People advocating this need to move to Linux.
 
And clang – well, why shouldn’t it be optional?
When discussing pkg-base, we must be careful not to mix up things. Clang should (IMHO) never be removed from base, it wouldn't be self-contained any more regarding building. But, of course, it should be optional to install it ;)
 
Right, so strip EVERYTHING out that isn't used for the boot process and then watch your small userbase dwindle even further? Idiocracy is the new method of running FreeBSD?

It's absurd and reduces FreeBSD to a kernel. People advocating this need to move to Linux.
Agreed. It basically would be Debian kFreeBSD at this point. Just pull in the "pkg-base" via apt-get instead and be done with it.
 
Right, so strip EVERYTHING out that isn't used for the boot process and then watch your small userbase dwindle even further? Idiocracy is the new method of running FreeBSD?

It's absurd and reduces FreeBSD to a kernel. People advocating this need to move to Linux.
Understanding things isn't really your strength…

Do you have more unfounded, silly and totally non-technical "arguments"?
 
Our favourite programmers are discussing wether to deprecate the ftpd in FreeBSD base or not.
What do you think? Keep it or toss it? Do you still use it?
I still use and enjoy using ftpd and to be honest I'm not bothered with this at all. For several reasons...

First the obvious... how often do you install FreeBSD? I'm convinced that those who do have long customized the procedure and if they didn't then maybe now would be a good time to learn how to do so.

Second... I'm already "unhappy" with the base system! (naah 😎). Not unhappy as in displeased or such, but the current base system already doesn't cut it for me. All my FreeBSD servers need at the very least the addition of: Midnight commander, Git, GnuPG, Korn shell (pdksh), docproj, lynx (because of said docproj 😁), portmaster, pwgen, screen, rar (I even have this officially licensed, awesome archiver IMO), chkrootkit, java (though I'm somewhat moving away from this a bit) and I also rely on the PostgreSQL server.

Probably needless to say but I also don't rely on packages for this ("sorta") so these get build with custom options.

In other words.. I'm already spending plenty of time to set everything up and adding one more package to this list isn't going to change much for me.

And the final reason... I always update my servers by using the source (and not just for the geek sound of it 😁). So... how long has it been since GCC was dumped and replaced by Clang? Coincidence has it that I just updated the source tree this evening so.. let's take a look here...

Code:
peter@vps:/usr/src $ man -m share/man src.conf | grep -i gcc
             CCACHE_CPP2 option is used for Clang but not GCC.
             phase of the build.  To be able to build the system, either gcc
             Set to install the GCC compiler as /usr/bin/cc, /usr/bin/c++ and
             Set to not build and install gcc and g++ as part of the normal
             Set to build and install gcc and g++.
             Set to not build gcc and g++ as part of the bootstrap process.
             You must enable either gcc or clang bootstrap to be able to build
             Set to build gcc and g++ as part of the bootstrap process.
             platforms where gcc is the system compiler.
             Set to use GCC's stack unwinder (instead of LLVM's libunwind).
             Set to use LLVM's libunwind stack unwinder (instead of GCC's
Surely I must be seeing things here... hmm, nope: WITH_GCC is still a thing.

How long has it been? Well, I did a git log and looked around then found this:

Code:
commit 52b42bace1338f8146d7dd5d1a7f6e41d5f5f80d
Author: David Chisnall <theraven@FreeBSD.org>
Date:   Fri Sep 6 20:08:03 2013 +0000

    On platforms where clang is the default compiler, don't build gcc or libstdc++.
    To enable them, set WITH_GCC and WITH_GNUCXX in src.conf.
    Make clang default to using libc++ on FreeBSD 10.
    Bumped __FreeBSD_version for the change.
Sounds about right to me because it was around 10 when the transition started, I still remember because I moved away from GCC manually and started using Clang long before it became official.

So 8 years later and GCC is still in the base system? I'm not worried.

Just my 2 cents here of course.

(edit)

I personally really like the approach Openbsd takes, which is installation = unpack some tarballs. Super simple and not error-prone.
FreeBSD does the same thing though. Why else do you think base.txz and kernel.txz exist? I always use those 2 to set up a new jail. Painless, only needs a default configuration added to /etc.
 
It basically would be Debian kFreeBSD at this point. Just pull in the "pkg-base" via apt-get instead and be done with it.
Utter nonsense. It's just a more flexible way for distributing the same old thing, which is STILL a complete and stable base system developed as a whole. You're just not forced to build it yourself in order to leave out things in your install any more.

edit: BTW, have a look e.g. here: https://cgit.freebsd.org/src/tree/bin/ed/Makefile?h=releng/13.0#n5
This kind of infrastructure for actually packaging base components has been there for a long time already. In this case, it tells you that ed will go in a runtime package.
 
Utter nonsense. It's just a more flexible way for distributing the same old thing, which is STILL a complete and stable base system developed as a whole. You're just not forced to build it yourself in order to leave out things in your install any more.
I honestly don't see the difference between:

# pkg install pkg-base

and

# apt-get install pkg-base

Both grab the same files. Both presumably populate /usr/local. Really the filesystem should end up identical apart from some random GNU programs lying around in /usr (and maybe grub and some other Linux crap).

Especially if you start ricing with the install and leaving out things like clang or... ed.
 
A system compiler installed is dictated by the POSIX and SUS standard.

That and ed ;)
FreeBSD isn’t POSIX / SUS compliant anyway. ;) Seriously, a user shouldn’t be forced to install things he don’t need, no matter if some standard dictates it or not. I prefer freedom of choice to dictatorship.

Apart from that, I am not saying that FreeBSD shouldn’t ship with a compiler. It certainly should. I’m just saying that it would be useful to have an option to not install it if you don’t want it.
 
Back
Top