Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>