Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:16:05 +0100 From: Alex Zbyslaw <xfb52@dial.pipex.com> To: Owen G <owen_pg@yahoo.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, mh983@yahoo.com Subject: Re: defining dependencies for ports Message-ID: <44BB9BA5.5050203@dial.pipex.com> In-Reply-To: <20060717135455.44183.qmail@web60618.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060717135455.44183.qmail@web60618.mail.yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Owen G wrote: >You are aware that there exists >1. ports = source = must be compiled = "make install" (as above) >2. packages = executable packages = precompiled = "pkgadd -r . . ." > > > Whilst your description of ports and packages is correct... >So unless you're running a custom kernel, there's no advantage of ports >over packages. > ...this is not. Ports are useful : 1) For any package with multiple compile-time options (e.g. apache) where *you* want to choose those options rather than be stuck with the ones the *package* was compiled with (c.f. Linux rpms) 2) If you want to be as up-to-date as possible - packages take time to pre-compile and can lag the ports tree a little 3) If require the source code (for maintaining local patches; because another port or some other local software needs it) I'm not aware that a custom kernel has any relevance whatsoever. Perhaps you meant "unless you have used some cpu-specific compile flag in make.conf" but I don't think even that would make a difference. Also, ports and packages are managed much more easily with a tool like portupgrade or portmanager. I prefer the former because it has never core-dumped on me, and feels more robust and well maintained. If you have multiple machines you keep in sync, then portupgrade -p or pkg_create -b can be used to create local packages with *your* compile-time options that other local machines can use. --Alex
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44BB9BA5.5050203>