Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 08:18:11 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fernando_Apestegu=EDa?= <fernando.apesteguia@gmail.com> To: Olivier Nicole <olivier.nicole@cs.ait.ac.th> Cc: User Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Official FreeBSD Binary Packages now available for pkgng Message-ID: <CAGwOe2b6cqsXxBmH5eeVi_gaVH9Drhq6FiST49mm=OR8p4OFqg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CA%2Bg%2BBviaau18iHMmhOuO1VG1zp7pe90LFtQYSSLU7kcZtsqU-w@mail.gmail.com> References: <5271BC11.1010303@FreeBSD.org> <5271D5BA.9060004@networktest.com> <CA%2Bg%2BBviaau18iHMmhOuO1VG1zp7pe90LFtQYSSLU7kcZtsqU-w@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
El 31/10/2013 05:31, "Olivier Nicole" <olivier.nicole@cs.ait.ac.th> escribi=F3: > > Hi, > > >> You can now either continue to use ports with portmaster/portupgrade, as > >> before or switch to using binary packages only. > > I strongly expect that ports will remain a standard feature in the > later releases of FreeBSD. They will. Ports are not going anywhere. But from now on, the package created as the last step in the port compilation (make) will be in pkg's format (much more flexible, and fast than the old pkg_* commands). > > Packages may be nice for the home/desktop user, but when it comes to > production servers, one wants to be able to tweak what he is > installing. > > FreeBSd is certainly my choice of an OS when I need to install a > server, but if it ends up looking like Microsoft, I will have to > reconsider. > > The cost of recompiling a port is way worth the flexibility it offers. > > Olivier > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to " freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAGwOe2b6cqsXxBmH5eeVi_gaVH9Drhq6FiST49mm=OR8p4OFqg>