Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 16:45:30 -0700 From: Xin LI <delphij@delphij.net> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The cost of a source based package system Message-ID: <4E69539A.7080703@delphij.net> In-Reply-To: <201109081326.11474.erichfreebsdlist@ovitrap.com> References: <20110908045328.C6E2E1EE8F1@keeper.homelinux.org> <201109081326.11474.erichfreebsdlist@ovitrap.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 09/07/11 23:26, Erich Dollansky wrote: > Hi, > > On Thursday 08 September 2011 11:53:28 Stefan Schaeckeler wrote: >> Hi all, please don't take this posting too serious. I was just >> curious ... > > your are talking about a serious problem. >> >> Using source based ports is with almost 5 US cents 6.19 times >> (case 1 vs case 2a) or 1.73 times (case 1 vs case 2b) more >> expensive than using binary packages :) > > Yes, but: > > You are moving the cost from you to the the hosting companies. If > more people use packages, they will need more capacity to supply > all the different variants. > > Does anybody know what takes more capacity? The sources or the > binaries? I would believe that the sources would take more space > and bandwidth but the different variants of the binaries could be > much bigger at the end. > > I remember some articles about the electricity bill Google gets > every month. It is not that low. > > So, to paint a more complete picture, we must see both sides of > the fence. > > To make matters worse, people like me do both. I upgrade via the > packages and then compile while I am already able to work with the > new ports. At least, if the packages worked. Both portmaster and portupgrade have 'package' mode, which uses packages when available. If one can live with default optimization (which is usually good anyways) and if most times the default options would satisfy his/her need, or if the port doesn't provide any options, binary packages would save a lot of time. The real problem for FreeBSD's packaging system is, in my opinion, we do not maintain branches and ports tree is a fast moving target, making it impractical to build packages and push to mirrors. My $0.02: It might be worthy to experiment a branched development model and only pull up changes at a much lower pace to branch (e.g. create a branch near a release and drop the branch after a few weeks once a new one is created, and only pullup changes when there is need, like because security vulnerability or serious reliability/performance issue), it would be easier to produce binary package and sync them across mirrors. Cheers, - -- Xin LI <delphij@delphij.net> https://www.delphij.net/ FreeBSD - The Power to Serve! Live free or die -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (FreeBSD) iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJOaVOaAAoJEATO+BI/yjfBWmkH/RRpJWJQn4Gqv7WL/HMsX/4Y kXZjVwS5uRF1hey3kf768P0Z1KcFeWNjyMx/B7VkV30tZzqs6Y/5EDqIEKrbrHJ/ Cq6tJGojG6k58dZPPRmCAo97FNbMYO2Xn4pj4+vz2hy/s0YRpPY9Ry+1yGMW0N2W Z55Xoko51Y5e1ZDtMjXTe+AqW1N+Gt/S/5HNAqTY9znpMADmeTyON+37wd069x+E WDd1oHLGadTt123KBU0NMhAMXGhWZWhQh6u6YRQP9Xkog3k9mNnAO+gHY/xiUG0h 2vlDhbZ5WFbeuw7eLd7sWgfgl77j42TFSFq0PUR9gdEBPkBJSjjJkk+B0Wb+A5E= =V1Bg -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4E69539A.7080703>