From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Aug 25 13:57:49 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 024D116A4CE for ; Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:57:49 +0000 (GMT) Received: from lists.freedombi.com (thedalesgroup.com [207.179.98.220]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D89943D2D for ; Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:57:48 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from charles@idealso.com) Received: by lists.freedombi.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E8A7972825; Wed, 25 Aug 2004 09:28:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from freedombi.com (localhost [192.168.10.108]) by lists.freedombi.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3843772495; Wed, 25 Aug 2004 09:28:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 24.11.146.21 (SquirrelMail authenticated user charles) by freedombi.com with HTTP; Wed, 25 Aug 2004 09:28:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <37944.24.11.146.21.1093440481.squirrel@freedombi.com> In-Reply-To: <20040824152712.2dac95e6@localhost> References: <37045.24.11.146.21.1093373223.squirrel@freedombi.com> <20040824152712.2dac95e6@localhost> Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 09:28:01 -0400 (EDT) From: "Charles Ulrich" To: "epilogue" User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on freedombi.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.7 required=7.0 tests=BAYES_00,PRIORITY_NO_NAME autolearn=no version=2.63 cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Reinstalling, then upgrading (Was Re: Salvageable? (Was Re:makeinstallworld error)) X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:57:49 -0000 epilogue said: >> Just out of curiosity, is it incorrect to simply say that ports build >> packages? > > Yes. Well, now I've received one explicit "yes" answer and one explicit "no" answer to this question, leading me to believe that there might not be a clear consensus even among experienced FreeBSD users. (I count myself as one also.) It's possible that we're splitting hairs with all of this, but splitting hairs is what explanation is all about. > For any given application, the FreeBSD >>> package <<< for that > application is a >>> single file <<< which you must download. The package > contains >>> pre-compiled <<< copies of all the commands for the > application, as well as any configuration files or documentation. A > downloaded package file can be manipulated with FreeBSD package management > commands, such as pkg_add(1), pkg_delete(1), pkg_info(1), and so on. > Installing a new application can be carried out with a single command. > > FreeBSD >>> port <<< for an application is a >>> collection of files <<< > designed to >>> automate the process of compiling <<< an application >>>> from source code <<<. What this leaves out is the state of the software after it has already been installed. Lowell Gilbert confirmed my assumption that whether you install a piece of software via a port or via package, they are indistinguisable from each other on the system AFTER they've been installed. That is to say, you can install a port and then operate on it with the pkg_* commands, even though it was not installed as a package. Hence the assertion that "ports build packages," even though it looks like it may be technically incorrect to refer to post-installed software as "packages" since one has no way of telling how the software was installed after the fact. > the fbsd handbook is one of the very best in *nixland. please pay it the > attention it deserves. Believe me, I do. Indeed, I could hardly do my job without it. Thanks for your time. -- Charles Ulrich System Administrator Ideal Solution - http://www.idealso.com