From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 19 17:43:24 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F2A9685 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 17:43:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ie0-x242.google.com (mail-ie0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::242]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D543775E for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 17:43:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ie0-f194.google.com with SMTP id to1so3267150ieb.9 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 10:43:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=xV2G6OId6P8Q77awxS+E9VyLHXHqmfX1ADe+6hq9l+s=; b=Hl59M0WYIQg7295InC3OWfsWNZskY0Wvwo1hIOF2VFzUULLxpFPg9Djx0tlYBeDABw XA+lqA2HP6qEAzC/2bkP59ZkT2DKTWJ3+Hu8E5i056zaVQ+5SCtiC7FkJ4jW1feq8caK z7IFhVQrrbu/X7DfTTz9szjPVvn5OKMOa59fDN7qiUvT9ACm8AsogoQ3BOd0I77T50ND aZTMfTb9fN9UjfjiNiaNB6zHLbZckIxHA9lohRqYfcNA6hUkiFqepLUlabA8JbiGy6/O 8xecbGM7LZZmn4ZinS5cQnV0P+/s8EIKYNoEE7pbgAu0TZUpkl9dgOvDCiUlF4qSFXuf w21A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.43.52.65 with SMTP id vl1mr1739546icb.86.1395251003282; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 10:43:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.73.34 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 10:43:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 18:43:23 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: FreeBSD is really great.. BUT.. From: Martin Braun To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.17 X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 17:43:24 -0000 > Because we're in a state of transition at the moment. We have not yet > completely obsoleted the old pkg_tools (soon though...), so there are > changes to the ports tree we cannot make just yet. pkg(8) itself is > right now in the process of growing a much more sophisticated solver, > which will mean much more intelligence about constructing dependency > trees based on the capabilities and requirements of the available > packages, rather than the RUN_DEPENDS settings pulled from the ports tree. > > Yes, it's frustrating at the moment since we're in a half-way house > between the old-style ports and the regime where binary packages > basically 'just work' for the vast majority of users. (It's likely that > there will always be people who want odd combinations of options who > will be best advised to compile their own, but ideally they should be > few and far between.) > > The best user experience at the moment seems to be for people building > packages using poudriere (or similar) and running their own repo to > distribute them. But that's just at the moment, and could well change > pretty soon. > > Cheers, > > Matthew Thanks! I think I'm gonna try Debian kFreeBSD - maybe I get the best of both - until then atleast!