From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jul 17 14:16:08 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E459916A4DE for ; Mon, 17 Jul 2006 14:16:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from xfb52@dial.pipex.com) Received: from smtp-out3.blueyonder.co.uk (smtp-out3.blueyonder.co.uk [195.188.213.6]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DDF243D4C for ; Mon, 17 Jul 2006 14:16:07 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from xfb52@dial.pipex.com) Received: from [172.23.170.141] (helo=anti-virus02-08) by smtp-out3.blueyonder.co.uk with smtp (Exim 4.52) id 1G2TtG-0002CN-RN; Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:16:07 +0100 Received: from [82.41.34.175] (helo=[192.168.0.2]) by asmtp-out3.blueyonder.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1G2TtF-0003pU-TV; Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:16:05 +0100 Message-ID: <44BB9BA5.5050203@dial.pipex.com> Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:16:05 +0100 From: Alex Zbyslaw User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-GB; rv:1.7.13) Gecko/20060515 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Owen G References: <20060717135455.44183.qmail@web60618.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20060717135455.44183.qmail@web60618.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, mh983@yahoo.com Subject: Re: defining dependencies for ports X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 14:16:09 -0000 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