Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 20:15:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Jason Hunt <leth@primus.ca> To: Tom ONeil <tom.oneil@tacni.com> Cc: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ports or From Source? Message-ID: <20021011195616.L60458-100000@lethargic.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <3DA74753.9020505@tacni.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 11 Oct 2002, Tom ONeil wrote: > >>On freebsd I see there is a ports collection and I am > >>wondering what to do here and what others do; compile from original source > >>or build from the port. > > Building from ports *is* building from source. It pulls down the correct > source and compiles it. Any changes go into the Makefile. > This is true. I did not mean to imply that compiling via the ports is not compiling from the source code. I suppose I just assumed that every knows this. > Or am I missing something? > Maybe I am. :) Take Apache+PHP as an example. I have always liked to statically compile PHP into Apache, as opposed to using the DSO. I've never liked modules in general (ie: in the kernel), because I would think that statically compiling things together is better performance wise. I have absolutely no reasoning or proof behind this idea, as it just seems to make sense in my mind. I'm not sure if there is a way to do a static compile PHP of into Apache with the ports, and I've honestly never looked into it before. Glancing through the ports, it seems to be that PHP is only available through the DSO method. Also, for the past 3+ years I've always done it manually (on Linux and *BSD systems), so that's what I'm used to doing. My two cents. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021011195616.L60458-100000>