Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 23:20:04 -0700 From: Garrett Cooper <yanefbsd@gmail.com> To: Arseny Nasokin <eirnym@gmail.com> Cc: Alexey Shuvaev <shuvaev@physik.uni-wuerzburg.de>, "freebsd-ports@freebsd.org" <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Old ports bugs analyzis Message-ID: <z2r7d6fde3d1003302320q7504c218w80b300dac36bf7af@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <066EBF09-FF6E-48C7-A1F9-0BB6B6A1EADC@gmail.com> References: <ac29a5e51003291405x428cea9el889f802fa2312fb0@mail.gmail.com> <20100330191416.GB98488@wep4035.physik.uni-wuerzburg.de> <2F334A43-634E-4AAC-A144-54200FEE7003@gmail.com> <7d6fde3d1003301349t32a98a49uc223a710a1f2ede4@mail.gmail.com> <57C3B32A-21E5-4D66-8311-800F62B54C6C@gmail.com> <7d6fde3d1003301714o1da03b52j8ac6b8122c1bc45d@mail.gmail.com> <066EBF09-FF6E-48C7-A1F9-0BB6B6A1EADC@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 9:36 PM, Arseny Nasokin <eirnym@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 31 Mar 2010, at 04:14, Garrett Cooper <yanefbsd@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Today binary packages are rolled as generic as possible provided the
>> architecture they're built for and are monolithic, meaning that they
>> contain the build, lib, patch, and run dependencies required to build
>> everything, as they're generated after an in-place install in
>> ${PREFIX} .
>>
>> One of many ideas we were kicking around on #bsdports was to produce
>> `fat packages' which would be usable in package installation and ports
>> building scenarios (similar to the headache that exists in many Linux
>> distros with -devel and non-devel packages), but the user could
>> specify whether or not they wanted the -devel pieces or not (if it
>> applied) -- so only one set of packages would need to be distributed.
>>
>> We didn't really kick the idea around too much, but it was still a
>> novelty that should be `nursed' to a proper conclusion as it would
>> allow folks who roll packages and install on embedded systems /
>> install bases, or prefer installing via packages, to have small
>> install bases, and smaller potential binary roll up after the fact.
>
> I can't see and discuss in IRC due browser and platform(software part)
> limitations in nearest future.
>
> I don't clearly understand, will be ports system removed? Will there will be
> sourse and binary packages or will it be Gentoo-style "portages", which will
> provide installation from binary or source with options?
Gentoo portage is maintainer hell; we have enough fun with ports not
to get stuck in that mess.
> Almost all packages in my systems has custom settings.
Which is exactly why I advocate using ports for my desktops and
servers. I just have other vested interests outside of my personal
machines where binary packages are better suited than installed a
boatload of packages from source.
Cool thing is though, if people use standard packages, there's a
greater chance of there not being stability issues with the packages
themselves right (or at least all of the issues will be known
upfront)?
Thanks :),
-Garrett
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?z2r7d6fde3d1003302320q7504c218w80b300dac36bf7af>