Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 18:52:47 +0000 From: Chris Rees <crees@bayofrum.net> To: Matt Reimer <mattjreimer@gmail.com>, freebsd-ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Maximizing the use of binary packages and minimizing building packages Message-ID: <52D5877F.7060508@bayofrum.net> In-Reply-To: <CAF9MD52AwvzBTq9ys0ADW_-LojL38HSuNVtbCi=yEa6uYRu4uQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAF9MD52AwvzBTq9ys0ADW_-LojL38HSuNVtbCi=yEa6uYRu4uQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 01/14/14 17:46, Matt Reimer wrote: > I'd like to switch from installing and upgrading our packages using > portmaster/portupgrade to using pkg + binary packages from the ports > cluster as much as possible. > > I understand that the ports cluster builds its packages using default > options, but some of our packages we need built with custom options (e.g. > enable mysql for postfix). > > Is there a tool that can look at /var/db/ports/foo/options and tell which > options differ from the default options? Then I could decide whether I can > live with the defaults (and therefore use the binary package), or whether > to pkg-lock that package and update it by hand using portmaster. > > Or is there a better way to handle this situation, where I want to use > binary packages where possible and only build when necessary? > Mixing ports and packages is discouraged and can get messy, because upgrades can get out of sync... Your best bet is to set up a little build server, if you have the hardware-- I just use a computer I have hidden away from my wife for it, which pulls down changes and builds a new repo using Tinderbox every day. It works really well, so if you're interested, I suppose I could bash some of my scripts into shape and document how to do it. Chris -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?52D5877F.7060508>