Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 11:49:31 +0100 From: FreeBSD Prospect <mailings.freebsd@o0l0o.org> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: FreeBSD Ports vs. Gentoo Portage (a matter of concept) Message-ID: <200602071149.31772.mailings.freebsd@o0l0o.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, Reading a lot about FreeBSD recently made me really curious. I know, that the founder of Gentoo (the well known GNU/Linux meta-distribution, which is also based on compiling everything from source) was using FreeBSD for some time, before continuing creating Gentoo, what's why portage (the Gentoo software management system) is generally based on FreeBSD's ports. FreeBSD is generally seen as being more secure, more stable, has a lot more software in ports, and used to be the better choice especially for production servers. Now I am wondering, how this is even possible considering the following: - Portage divides all software into three states: hardmasked, masked unstable/testing (~arch) and stable (arch). - In ports there is no such difference, which means the lastest software is just available using the usual port management features, without the need to fiddle around with unmasking something, to be able to install it. In most cases (even the usual desktop stuff, like Gnome & KDE) software in ports is more up-to-date than in portage. That means, to be able to compare Gentoo Linux with FreeBSD, you would have to run a pure unstable (~arch) Gentoo system, which is generally not recommended, and especially not for a production system. So how is it possible, that FreeBSD is considered to be more suited as a production environment, if it runs the latest software-versions, which are considered unstable/testing in Gentoo? How comes, that a FreeBSD system is considered to cause less work do administer this way (thinking of regular updates of installed ports, and if it's only for security fixes - compare that to the frequent changes in ~arch portage)? And shouldn't a FreeBSD system break more often, if kept up to date on a regular basis (this is meant concerning the software installed from ports, not the base-system)? Maybe I am missing something here, or maybe the procedure to get something into ports is different (more test in advance by the contributors/devs?), but I could not find more info about that matter until now. Don't get me wrong, I think the portage way with the three different states is useful, and the more I read about the ports system in FreeBSD, the less I think, ports are superior to portage (at least if you are used to portage and USE flags). But hands down, using Gentoo, even a stable (arch) system can break from time to time, and a mixture of stable (arch) and unstable/testing (~arch) packages may also not be the best approach (try to "hold" an unstable package by using something like "=sys-apps/baselayout-1.12.0_pre13-r1" and see that particular ebuild disappear in favor of newer unstable versions with portage complaining about no suitable versions being available for your setup). The FreeBSD way, to split the base system (the OS itself) from addon software, is a really good idea, so that the base system can be kept stable and profen to be well tested, but I just don't understand, how this is fitting under one hat, with having a stable OS & all the lastest add-on software installed. How does this work out in the FreeBSD world? P.S. If interested in upcoming reactions from the Gentoo world, have a look at the following forum posting: http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-3091579.html -- Sincerely, Michael A FreeBSD Prospect, who is actually using Gentoo Linux
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200602071149.31772.mailings.freebsd>