Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 10:01:18 +0800 From: Erich Dollansky <erichsfreebsdlist@alogt.com> To: rvclayton@acm.org (R. Clayton) Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Reconfiguring a package and other questions. Message-ID: <20140710100118.4e0b1ba7@X220.alogt.com> In-Reply-To: <8738eaochn.fsf@UlanBator.myhome.westell.com> References: <8738eaochn.fsf@UlanBator.myhome.westell.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 10:03:48 -0400 rvclayton@acm.org (R. Clayton) wrote: > it as a port with appropriate configuration. This works, but raises you said it. You did some configuration. A packages always comes with the default configuration of the port. > the question of consistency between ports and packages. What is the > relation between the software in ports and the software in packages? > Have I just introduced an error (or potential for error) that will > come back and bite me hard six months after I've forgotten what I've > done? > The moment you have to use a single port with your specific configuration, I would recommend to use the ports for all the software you need. If you can run a system which matches 100% the defaults, you can stick with the packages or the effort to find out of the consequences will exceed the effort to use ports. This made me to stick with ports since many, many years. Even if I install sometimes a machine with the packages, I move it later always to the ports. Erich
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140710100118.4e0b1ba7>