Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 18:09:23 +0200 From: Jose M Rodriguez <josemi@freebsd.jazztel.es> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Cc: f-questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: alternative options for ports Message-ID: <200410181809.23797.josemi@freebsd.jazztel.es> In-Reply-To: <200410161318.41789.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> References: <michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> <20041015231420.GB11786@moo.holy.cow> <200410161318.41789.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
El S=E1bado, 16 de Octubre de 2004 13:18, Michael Nottebrock escribi=F3: > On Saturday 16 October 2004 01:14, Parv wrote: > > I suppose i had to wade in sooner or later ... > > > > > > in message <200410152156.16113.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net>, > > wrote Michael Nottebrock thusly... > > > > > On Friday 15 October 2004 16:15, Erik Trulsson wrote: > > > > I almost never use binary packages but build everything from > > > > source. (I.e. I would probably barely notice if all binary > > > > packages suddenly disappeared never to return.) > > > > Well, i certainly be mightily ticked off (due to lack of *some* of > > the packages) when i lack the resources to build a humongous port > > like Open Office. > > > > > I realise that there is a fraction of ports users which don't > > > care about packages at all ... but they are not the primary > > > target audience of ports, as I pointed out before. > > > > Michael N, do you imply in above quote that FreeBSD ports system's > > main purpose is to provide packages? > > No, it's _one_ main purpose. Unlike portage or certain big rpm-based > Linux distributions, freebsd ports does not lean towards either > source or binary. This implies however both the package and 'the cd > portdir; make; make install' of installing a port need to be taken > into consideration when creating and maintaining a port. Packages are > NOT a second class byproduct of ports which are nice when they are > nice and if they're not, it doesn't matter anyway. If the package of > a certain port sucks, the port sucks, it's as simple as that. I think this need some comments. There're binary oriented ports (well,=20 better package) systems. But not source oriented package system. You can find binary oriented package systems like openpkg (and, in=20 general, rpm systems) that work 'directly from sources'. To explain this, openpkg guides teach you to use srpm (source rpm), not=20 rpm (binary). What really makes a ports/package system 'binary' oriented is that there=20 is a strict model of the final package. There isn't options on a=20 binary oriented package system. On OpenBSD, flavors register near but different binary packages. But=20 none of these have options. Only the main flavour. IMHO, the most interesting feature of OpenBSD ports and rpm that maybe=20 imported are 'build subproducts'. That is, be able to generates several packages form just one port=20 build/install. But even this is by no mean a trivial task. =2D- josemi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200410181809.23797.josemi>