Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 08:34:15 -0400 From: Jason Stewart <jstewart@rtl.org> To: Charles Howse <chowse@charter.net>, Free BSD Questions list <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Ports vs. Packages Message-ID: <3F421947.7090903@rtl.org> In-Reply-To: <017f01c365e6$d0a1bd50$04fea8c0@moe> References: <017f01c365e6$d0a1bd50$04fea8c0@moe>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Charles Howse wrote: >>Packages are nice for the speed you can install them with, >>but can be much >>harder to deal with the dependencies unless you use something like >>portupgrade (which is much more useful after you've got what you want >>installed and want to keep it all up to date). >> >> > >Well, that begs the question, how about installing what I want from >packages and then using portupgrade to keep it up2date? > That's the whole point of portupgrade. Keeping it all up to date. The ports system is much, much better than Redhat's update mechanism too. I install all of my ports from source on my PII 333 machine even though I have to wait for them all to compile. The performance increase of binaries compiled for your system is worth the wait IMO. Sometimes if I don't feel like waiting, I'll just let portupgrade fetch the distfiles, then compile everything when I go to bed. Good Luck, Jason
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3F421947.7090903>