Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 03:56:41 -0500 From: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> To: Alexander Bubnov <alexander.bubnov@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: netbsd pkgsrc Message-ID: <20091006085641.GB14208@lonesome.com> In-Reply-To: <c3e287ff0910060106h64cb8bfbkfaa35a11822fb4bf@mail.gmail.com> References: <c3e287ff0910060106h64cb8bfbkfaa35a11822fb4bf@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 12:06:08PM +0400, Alexander Bubnov wrote: > Why FreeBSD does not use pkgsrc of NetBSD project as default ports? You're able to do so if you like -- FreeBSD is a supported pkgsrc platform IIUC. OTOH, there are some things FreeBSD ports are able to do that pkgsrc can't (e.g. follow port renames/recategorizations by MOVED during port upgrades). The converse is true, as well. There are also the following data which might be of interest. Note: for FreeBSD and pkgsrc, I'm using the number of things that are buildable from source; but for OpenBSD, I'm using the number of binary packages that are available for the i386 platform (but only because I don't have a quick way to figure out the equivalent ports count, which is higher. Hopefully, someone will inform me.) Therefore, this is a _slightly_ apples vs. oranges comparision, but it still may be informative. FreeBSD 20730* pkgsrc 8458** OpenBSD 5379*** mcl * per FreshPorts.org ** per pkgsrc.org *** from an OpenBSD web page; again, this is undercounting
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20091006085641.GB14208>