From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Aug 25 14:32:15 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 417B516A4CE for ; Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:32:15 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sccrmhc13.comcast.net (sccrmhc13.comcast.net [204.127.202.64]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F280A43D2D for ; Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:32:14 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mailist@whoweb.com) Received: from h000092a708fc.ne.client2.attbi.com ([24.131.157.19]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc13) with SMTP id <2004082514321301600jsuune>; Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:32:14 +0000 From: mailist@whoweb.com To: "Charles Ulrich" , "epilogue" Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 10:33:24 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 References: <37045.24.11.146.21.1093373223.squirrel@freedombi.com> <20040824152712.2dac95e6@localhost> <37944.24.11.146.21.1093440481.squirrel@freedombi.com> In-Reply-To: <37944.24.11.146.21.1093440481.squirrel@freedombi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200408251033.24234.mailist@whoweb.com> 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 14:32:15 -0000 On Wednesday 25 August 2004 09:28 am, Charles Ulrich wrote: > 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. Maybe because you used a negative (incorrect) instead of a positive (correct)? I had to read the above exchange three times before I realized he was saying, yes it is incorrect. I thought he was agreeing, originally. No, it is not incorrect.....yes, it is correct.....to say that FreeBSD ports build FreeBSD packages. The last thing a FreeBSD port does is register itself as a loaded package. You can run pkg_info() and see that your port has been installed on the system. Furthermore, I agree with the original email stating that ports v package is confusing terminology for people new to FreeBSD. As pointed out by a subsequent post, the documented explanation is quite clear. However, it would be nice to use terminology that was "prima facia" obvious. Unfortunately, what is "obvious" is usually in the mind of the beholder. Personally, I would prefer "port" and "binary". Or maybe "port" and "ready-to-load". I've never understood how the work "package" was an obvious indicator that the contents were pre-compiled and ready to load.