Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 08:32:09 -0700 From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Lucas Holt <luke@foolishgames.com> Cc: Adam Vande More <amvandemore@gmail.com>, Kris Moore <kris@pcbsd.com>, John Hixson <jhixson@gmail.com>, ports@freebsd.org, Garrett Cooper <yanefbsd@gmail.com>, "Sam Fourman Jr." <sfourman@gmail.com>, "Dave Fourman\(Gmail\)" <dfourman@gmail.com>, Matt Olander <matt@ixsystems.com>, Vanessa Kraus <vmkraus@gmail.com>, FreeBSD Current <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ports and PBIs Message-ID: <4BC48E79.4090502@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <4BC418B5.1010304@foolishgames.com> References: <49684.1270905510@pcbsd.org> <4BC418B5.1010304@foolishgames.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 4/13/10 12:09 AM, Lucas Holt wrote: > On 4/10/2010 3:18 PM, kris@pcbsd.org wrote > <snip> >> However for my more hard-core friends, nothing stopping you from >> running your own ports down >> the road, more power to ya! For doing something like embedded work or >> a server this makes total >> sense and I think it is a huge positive for FreeBSD, no reason to >> trash that or break it in any way. >> For the other 99.9% of society who want something "that just works" >> for day-to-day computing, >> something like PBI is very attractive. It would be great to have an OS >> that offers best of both worlds. >> >> -- >> Kris Moore > > There are only two possibilities with any package system. Either give > the user self packaged binaries containing all shared libraries or make > them update everything. Both have positives and negatives. We've been > working on a new package system in MidnightBSD for some time. When we > weighed this issue, it was decided that letting users have old binaries > sitting around was a bad idea. It encourages a user to sit on a package > for a year and not install security updates. The larger package size > also deters users from downloading updates in parts of the world which > have slow Internet connections. Remember the GDI+ update to windows > awhile back? There were many applications that had to be updated and > Microsoft had to release a scanner to search the drive for uses. There > side isn't always rosy. > > Obviously, there are also advantages to the larger PBI packages for > users. PC-BSD is certainly easy to use. > > At the end of the day, I think creating packages more frequently during > releases and pushing updates like many linux distros do makes more sense > in terms of security. FreeBSD has ten times the number of ports to build > than we do so obviously it's a problem to build packages that frequently. > > I don't want to butt in any more on this because it's not my place, but > I just felt it was important to bring another perspective. It may be thaat part of the answer is to do both. For me I want to have PBIs for the actual tools I use on the machine.. things like wine, openoffice, gimp, etc. I don't care if these are 'bleeding edge'. I just want them to work, and to keep working no matter what I do in my development environment. On the other had for stuff I'm working on, I want ot be able to get the newest libraries etc and keep them up to date. This means I run the dependency problem but I'm willing to upgrade everything and if it breaks occasionally, I'll fix it. regardless of whether my development environment is current;y broke or not, the tools I actually use on the machine will not be affected. So for me I see a reason tehat we should use BOTH schemes. > > Lucas > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4BC48E79.4090502>