Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2018 13:01:24 +0200 From: Jos Chrispijn <bsdports@cloudzeeland.nl> To: Pete Wright <pete@nomadlogic.org>, FreeBSD Ports ML <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Ports vs packages Message-ID: <b4ddac60-806a-31a5-7c1e-28f3f2511087@cloudzeeland.nl> In-Reply-To: <9ff8da9a-8905-8b05-564a-a56cfb6da6af@nomadlogic.org> References: <5e365091-6889-2f65-78ac-637a7155733a@cloudzeeland.nl> <9ff8da9a-8905-8b05-564a-a56cfb6da6af@nomadlogic.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 26-8-2018 2:07, Pete Wright wrote: > one thing i do for my systems is if there is an update to a port i > need/want to test before the official build cluster is done is run a > "make package" in the port directory. then i can install the updated > code as a pkg for future upgrade convenience. this works great for > ports without many external dependencies at build-time, not so much > when things like llvm need to be build ;) I did that once myself but ended in total chaos because I found out that using ports and packages next to each other is not a good marriage. Port options that may have been enabled may be overuled by packages (which are always built using the default options). Not for a specific port but with regards to the depencies is will us (and which may already been installed as packages). I am quite a nub on this, so perhaps the problems were otherwise. Since I completely switched to packages, these issues are gone. /jos
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?b4ddac60-806a-31a5-7c1e-28f3f2511087>