Large port updates

Adam Weinberger adamw at
Tue Dec 7 14:31:07 PST 2004

On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 05:52:15PM +0000, mark at wrote:

>It seems to me that its a product of gnome being so many ports. Why
>not just have a few, like KDE (although it appears KDE is going the
>way of gnome - if this results in portupgrade not working there
>either, its insanity).

* With KDE, you get one big update every release. With GNOME, you
   can get new features, fixes, and improvements as soon as they become
   available. It's just a different design model. Each has its merits;
   each has its faults.

* With KDE, you have one kdelibs port that takes about 80 minutes to
   build. With GNOME, you have about 20 ports that take about 4 minutes
   each to build. 6 of one, half dozen of another. That's purely
   metaphorical, of course: using ccache, I can build all GNOME meta-
   ports in about 6.5 hours; building the KDE meta-port takes about 9.

* portupgrade(1) works perfectly if you run it regularly. If you
   introduce inconsistencies, portupgrade will fail no matter how you run
   it, or even if you build the updates from the command-line.

* If you don't like the deployment structure of GNOME, talk to GNOME,
   not FreeBSD. You wouldn't complain to your TV manufacturer if you
   didn't like a movie you rented.

# Adam

Adam Weinberger
adamw at || adamw at
adamw at    ||   adamw at

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list