Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:46:01 -0500 From: Mark Felder <feld@feld.me> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Cc: Jamie Paul Griffin <jamie@kode5.net> Subject: Re: pkgng questions Message-ID: <op.wjuzazc534t2sn@tech304> In-Reply-To: <20120830134354.GA54128@kontrol.kode5.net> References: <503F3B05.2040607@icritical.com> <op.wjuro5zv34t2sn@tech304> <20120830134354.GA54128@kontrol.kode5.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 08:43:54 -0500, Jamie Paul Griffin <jamie@kode5.net> wrote: > Can i ask, why is it that shifting the community to using packages is > deemed to be a better approach? I like being able to select > configuration options to build software. I have never installed a > pre-compiled package since using FreeBSD version 6.x. The long-term goal is subpackages so this need is alleviated. The only reason to compile yourself then is to play with the CFLAGS. :-) Example: right now if you want to build a webserver running Apache and PHP quickly with FreeBSD you have no choice but to use ports. The PHP package doesn't provide the Apache PHP module. But if we had packages for the independent options: php5-apache, php5-php-fpm, php5-cli, php5-cgi.... You see where this is going. It's moving toward the modularization that many Linux distros use. Some people are going to hate this, but it makes support for the ports team MUCH more consistent because everyone runs the same binaries.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?op.wjuzazc534t2sn>