Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 12:35:34 -0700 From: Matt Reimer <mattjreimer@gmail.com> To: Matthew Seaman <matthew@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Maximizing the use of binary packages and minimizing building packages Message-ID: <CAF9MD52yDpdiAKotRvCciAYRStOQ3Ni3WY2G1drbTu70y9wQqA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <52D58C86.2070101@FreeBSD.org> References: <CAF9MD52AwvzBTq9ys0ADW_-LojL38HSuNVtbCi=yEa6uYRu4uQ@mail.gmail.com> <52D5877F.7060508@bayofrum.net> <52D58C86.2070101@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
That's good news. What should I watch for in order to know when Really Soon Now becomes Now? Matt On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Matthew Seaman <matthew@freebsd.org>wrote: > On 14/01/2014 18:52, Chris Rees wrote: > > Mixing ports and packages is discouraged and can get messy, because > > upgrades can get out of sync... > > Although with recent developments in pkgng, that advice is going to > become outdated Real Soon Now. > > It is already possible to use mostly binary packages but compile some > yourself. However, yes, it can get messy and you need to be careful > about keeping your build tree reasonably in synch with the tree used to > build the official ports. Also, ingeneral, it's much easier to build > your ports when they are at the end of the dependency chain; ie. with > nothing else that depends on them. > > Cheers, > > Matthew > > -- > Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. > PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey > > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAF9MD52yDpdiAKotRvCciAYRStOQ3Ni3WY2G1drbTu70y9wQqA>