Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 15:59:25 -0400 From: Daniel Corbe <corbe@corbe.net> To: Arthur Chance <freebsd@qeng-ho.org> Cc: Matthew Seaman <matthew@freebsd.org>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD is really great.. BUT.. Message-ID: <ygfwqfqc63m.fsf@corbe.net> In-Reply-To: <5329C1C0.6070004@qeng-ho.org> (Arthur Chance's message of "Wed, 19 Mar 2014 16:11:44 %2B0000") References: <CAFNm86TGi5VDznAg3FU%2BVLWD9b3fLo-gA1fzhEhseMZfe2hNuA@mail.gmail.com> <5329B35B.8040005@freebsd.org> <5329C1C0.6070004@qeng-ho.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Arthur Chance <freebsd@qeng-ho.org> writes: > On 19/03/2014 15:10, Matthew Seaman wrote: >> On 03/19/14 10:34, Martin Braun wrote: >>> The binary packages on FreeBSD are compiled with so few options availab= le >>> that you end up compiling the whole bunch from source anyway! >>> >>> A simple setup on a mailserver with Postfix, Dovecot, MySQL, and a coup= le >>> of other packages doesn't work using the binary packages because they a= re >>> NOT compiled to fit together! >>> >>> Now.. what the "=C2=A4"%"#!"!=C2=A4 is the point then!? Why don't we ju= st forget >>> about binary packages in FreeBSD and make everyone compile? >> >> 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 tre= e. >> >> 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. > > That's good to hear and keep up the good work, but I suspect there are > some awkward customers (like me) who will always have to roll their > own. On world facing servers in particular I cut out large chunks of > the base system that aren't used, on the grounds that if it's present > it probably won't have security vulnerabilities, but if it's absent it > definitely can't have them. (Similarly, removing the tool chain on a > server prevents one well known attack escalation.) Some ports rely by > default on base system features I remove, so I'll always have to build > custom versions of those. However, if the pkgng work can satisfy 99% > of the FreeBSD audience the team will get major applause from me. > The current status quo is acceptable. Pre-built binary packages solve 80% of my problems and I have to build the other 20% from ports. But that's still 80% less work for me to do.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ygfwqfqc63m.fsf>