Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2017 19:08:28 -0500 From: Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: looks like I am no longer welcome around here Message-ID: <e2fd4718-271d-9d06-a473-f7d8c2971e59@columbus.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <20171209195258.d4727a94.freebsd@edvax.de> References: <CALM2mEkgjZ2XdiRvuT1364zWOZ4XY_6KSAg9dTqREK3cQKjWAw@mail.gmail.com> <20171209135853.a6c104f5.freebsd@edvax.de> <d9656b09-14b5-390b-6c7f-3ae3a4c123da@columbus.rr.com> <CAGBxaXmedH15y9NLTMEQqnTP=BvA_KXnmN6tN5DL7MxJAxN3pA@mail.gmail.com> <BN6PR2001MB173049BDDB7C9C6B5E17366F80310@BN6PR2001MB1730.namprd20.prod.outlook.com> <20171209160730.GA3370@admin.sibptus.transneft.ru> <20171209195258.d4727a94.freebsd@edvax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12/9/2017 1:52 PM, Polytropon wrote: > On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 23:07:30 +0700, Victor Sudakov wrote: >> Carmel NY wrote: >>> Just my own opinion; however, I do not consider synth, unlike poudriere, to be bloated. >> I don't even consider poudriere bloated. It is neat, does not require >> weird dependencies or GUI libs, stores its configuration in text >> files, uses the standard ports and jail infrastructure. Why would >> anyone call it bloated? > Not exactly bloated, but it could be considered "overhead" > just to build one or two ports. However, Poudriere is not > intended as a replacement for portmaster or portmanager, > that's important to keep in mind. And for the specific > case I mentioned, local repositories and restricted lists > are the way to go. If even that's too much, the classic > "make install" and "pkg lock" will probably be okay. > Which is what synth is good for. I am not going to get into the contraversy surrounding synth.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?e2fd4718-271d-9d06-a473-f7d8c2971e59>