Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 09:53:31 +0100 From: Torsten Zuehlsdorff <mailinglists@toco-domains.de> To: John Marino <freebsdml@marino.st>, Royce Williams <royce@tycho.org> Cc: Kevin Oberman <rkoberman@gmail.com>, lev@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Mailing List <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Removing documentation Message-ID: <56BD9D8B.7060208@toco-domains.de> In-Reply-To: <56BD2A1E.1020706@marino.st> References: <56B754A8.3030605@marino.st> <56BCE01D.4010701@FreeBSD.org> <56BCE218.40403@marino.st> <CA%2BE3k93iYs1p5Je-AKwJ7pVLdzYgSXWqb4P0XoD0oTJhrkt==Q@mail.gmail.com> <56BCEC5F.4020007@marino.st> <CA%2BE3k930YfN=LADkE7X4a82RSPZ-MSeKkC=U_J8kKDiy6vot=w@mail.gmail.com> <56BD2A1E.1020706@marino.st>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12.02.2016 01:41, John Marino wrote: > On 2/12/2016 1:22 AM, Royce Williams wrote: >> Is the abstraction is happening at the equivalent level here? The >> platforms that I'm thinking of -- that appear to have already solved >> this entire class of problem long ago -- feature wrappers around >> apt-get, not wrappers around dpkg. > > I'm not a linux guy so those things don't mean much the me. The > abstraction layer here is at the appropriate level. I'm not seeing this > fragmentation problem you're talking about, at least not with the newer > tools. I agree in this point with John. Also a clear "no" to the statement, that this problems are solved with apt-get or other tools in the Linux world. This is clearly not true. Did you, Royce, ever try to build something from the source and register it in the packet manager around dpkg? Build your own binary repository and mix it with others? Yes, FreeBSD did miss some features - but for the most use-cases it is much more reliably and flexible than the tools named by you, Royce. Whenever i bring up a comparison between the packet managers there is a clear win for FreeBSD voted by the Linux guys. Most time winning points are something simple like "pkg audit write you an email if there is a security issue". Or having a portstree in an code-repository and therefore the possibility to just go back in time. Or easy change/storable configuration files. > If there were no ports system, and everything was package-driven, I'd >> agree. Synth and its cousins exist because people work from ports -- >> which means that dependencies matter. > > Synth exist because people are insisting to build from source (even > irrationally) so they might as well do it correctly. The statement > above doesn't have anything to do with Synth being a binary. > > If a shell script was so good, why is portmaster unmaintainable? It is not unmaintainable. But it is not written in a manner which make maintenance very easy. But this is sadly true for most software... Greetings, Torsten
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?56BD9D8B.7060208>