From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Sun Aug 26 19:55:46 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3CFE10806E6 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2018 19:55:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from byshenknet@byshenk.net) Received: from v1.leiden.byshenk.net (v1.leiden.byshenk.net [37.97.209.179]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63B968EFA3 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2018 19:55:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from byshenknet@byshenk.net) Received: by v1.leiden.byshenk.net (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 02B9F75963; Sun, 26 Aug 2018 21:55:36 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2018 21:55:36 +0200 From: Gregory Byshenk To: FreeBSD Ports ML Cc: Pete Wright , Jos Chrispijn Subject: Re: Ports vs packages Message-ID: <20180826195536.GQ78383@v1.leiden.byshenk.net> References: <5e365091-6889-2f65-78ac-637a7155733a@cloudzeeland.nl> <9ff8da9a-8905-8b05-564a-a56cfb6da6af@nomadlogic.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.0 (2018-05-17) X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2018 19:55:46 -0000 On Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 01:01:24PM +0200, Jos Chrispijn wrote: > On 26-8-2018 2:07, Pete Wright wrote: > > one thing i do for my systems is if there is an update to a port i > > need/want to test before the official build cluster is done is run a > > "make package" in the port directory.? then i can install the updated > > code as a pkg for future upgrade convenience.? this works great for > > ports without many external dependencies at build-time, not so much > > when things like llvm need to be build ;) > > I did that once myself but ended in total chaos because I found out that > using ports and packages next to each other is not a good marriage. > Port options that may have been enabled may be overuled by packages > (which are always built using the default options). Not for a specific > port but with regards to the depencies is will us (and which may already > been installed as packages). > > I am quite a nub on this, so perhaps the problems were otherwise. Since > I completely switched to packages, these issues are gone. If you are using packages by default, then this shouldn't really be a problem. Your packages should have default options, so if you build one port - using the default options! - then there should be no serious conflict. At least when there are few/no dependencies, as Pete notes. Where you can get into problems is if you are building using ports by default, along with non-standard options, and then try to add packages. That can get very ugly. -- gregory byshenk - gbyshenk@byshenk.net - Leiden, NL