Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 20:49:37 +0100 From: John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> To: Randy Pratt <bsd-unix@embarqmail.com> Cc: Kevin Oberman <rkoberman@gmail.com>, FreeBSD Ports ML <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [FreeBSD-Ports-Announce] Time to bid farewell to the old pkg_ tools Message-ID: <52F3E751.50401@marino.st> In-Reply-To: <20140206111330.8df9c79e0ec1b9d2ffc9d0a1@embarqmail.com> References: <201402052202.s15M2Lha059200@fire.js.berklix.net> <52F2C0C8.5010203@gmx.de> <CAN6yY1uyXNp_c4PruKM89S9g0Y0QAs02cu5Z-dx3oSg1yZC19Q@mail.gmail.com> <52F32F7C.2030601@infracaninophile.co.uk> <CAN6yY1smkF2SdV190fE1KWKtr9FCiXBZ-08bQ=kc8vpDSnwooQ@mail.gmail.com> <20140206111330.8df9c79e0ec1b9d2ffc9d0a1@embarqmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2/6/2014 17:13, Randy Pratt wrote: > My experience with mixing ports and packages dates back to 2.2.5 and > the disasters it created. Most of the problems were created by the > ports tree and package builds not being syncronized. I switched to > ports exclusively and have not had those problems again. If a > mechanism existed to svn update a ports tree to the revision level of > the package build I would probably try to use packages for most > and limit building to those ports for which non-default OPTIONS were > employed. For me, this is the feature that has always been missing. Well, there are now "Quarterly" branches. You should be able to use pkgs and interlace with built ports seamlessly as long as a quarterly branch is the source of both. But yes, using some random binary package set with the latest and greatest ports trunk is probably going to end badly at some point. John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?52F3E751.50401>