Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 17:29:38 -0500 From: Jon Noack <noackjr@alumni.rice.edu> To: questions@freebsd.org Subject: bento and the ports system Message-ID: <40BBB1D2.4020800@alumni.rice.edu>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I was recently reading a packaging discussion over on the DragonFly
kernel list ("apt-get" thread -- originally "first release date"
thread). Some of it touched on the time required to build when using a
source-based packaging system. This gave me an idea: why don't we
integrate the bento cluster (http://pointyhat.freebsd.org/) with the
ports system?
What I envision:
Packages are already being built (for example,
http://pointyhat.freebsd.org/errorlogs/i386-packages-5-latest/). The
ports system would default to using the package if available, but there
would be an option to always compile from source. If the package wasn't
available (not yet built, NO_PACKAGE, etc.), the port would be compiled
from source as before. All that is needed is to set the default
PACKAGESITE to the above URL (or something slightly different depending
on architecture/release), make packages the default, and ensure there is
enough bandwidth to handle the load (mirrors?). I know security would
be a major consideration, but handling the load is the only technical
difficulty I see...
I think a significant number of people are turned off from FreeBSD
because of how long it takes to upgrade ports. This would speed things
up for them while preserving the flexibility of compiling from source
for those who want to do so.
This is a simple enough idea; surely others have considered it as well.
Any thoughts?
Jon Noack
P.S. The opinion on the DragonFly kernel list was that it was a good
idea in principle, but that the *BSD package system is very fragile.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?40BBB1D2.4020800>