From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Nov 30 06:35:52 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA03096 for freebsd-stable-outgoing; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 06:35:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from bamboo.ints.ml.org (intschool.easynet.co.uk [194.72.37.214]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA03091 for ; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 06:35:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from stuart@ints.ml.org) Received: (from stuart@localhost) by bamboo.ints.ml.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA17255; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 14:36:17 GMT (envelope-from stuart) Message-ID: <19981130143617.A17085@helan.org> Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 14:36:17 +0000 From: Stuart Henderson To: Nadav Eiron , nunnari Cc: stable Subject: Re: packages vs ports ?? References: <3662A039.227E53CB@agie.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i In-Reply-To: ; from Nadav Eiron on Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 03:48:26PM +0200 Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 03:48:26PM +0200, Nadav Eiron wrote: > > On Mon, 30 Nov 1998, nunnari wrote: > > > May it be that packages are executables while ports are still > > to be built? > > Correct. Nearly, but see (for example) Netscape or Acrobat Reader. They're ports but they provide binaries. Packages often don't have the full documentation, for that reason ports are usually preferable. Packages however are usually much faster to install as they don't involve compilation. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message