Hi, On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 14:36:28 +0300, Mikhail Kolesnik wrote:
On Mon, 29 May 2006 11:38:17 +0200 Mark Rosenstand <mark@borkware.net> wrote:
I'll suggest something like the FreeBSD install set selections, except for the top-level profiles ("Developer desktop" etc.), so instead of having all packages in one list, there'd be something like:
[x] core --> [ ] opt --> [ ] xorg --> [...] Wouldn't it be confusing to list xorg as top-level option? We have core, ort and opt/x11 in it... while list it separately. As far as I remember, BSD's have independent Xblah.tgz The practical issue here is that 'xorg' stands for 100+ ports, therefore it _must_ be a group. This is why I didn't call it core/opt/xorg in my original mail, I agree it's confusing otherwise. It's an implementation detail, though.
I would also like to see the discussion on services privileges separation, FHS compliance. I used Juergen's ports to make FHS like ports of apache, mysql, vsftpd with opportunity to create separate users for each... It works, so why not? Well, "it works" is a rather weak argument, since "it works" already now. Can you give us any convincing argument why you think CRUX would benefit from (full) FHS compliance?
Regards, Johannes -- Johannes Winkelmann mailto:jw@smts.ch Zurich, Switzerland http://jw.smts.ch