Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 22:26:07 -0600 From: Mark Felder <feld@FreeBSD.org> To: Anton Shterenlikht <mexas@bris.ac.uk>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, jeffreybouquet@yahoo.com Subject: Re: Reducing the size of the ports tree (brainstorm v2) Message-ID: <1415334367.3352.188112021.3470E273@webmail.messagingengine.com> In-Reply-To: <201411060924.sA69OiJp074172@mech-as221.men.bris.ac.uk> References: <201411060924.sA69OiJp074172@mech-as221.men.bris.ac.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014, at 03:24, Anton Shterenlikht wrote: > > I'm not sure what you mean here. > I've systems where I install 99% of packages > from official repo servers, and then rebuild > 1% from ports where the default options are > no good for me. Is this not supported? > Or do you mean something else? > You're treading dangerous ground unless you can be sure your ports tree svn checkout matches the checkout that was used to build the public packages. An example would be a situation where there was a library bump and your ports and packages don't match and now you have some binaries which don't work. If you have problems and you are using ports and packages mixed you will not find much sympathy in my experience. Bapt has mentioned a desire for tracking packages built from ports and making this much easier to support by having "pkg upgrade" detect the need to rebuild the port with your custom options and automatically updating the ports tree and building. This would be a supported process. I think this sounds like a fantastic way to solve this problem for the masses.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1415334367.3352.188112021.3470E273>