AW: alternative options for ports

[Jose M Rodriguez]

El Jueves, 14 de Octubre de 2004 13:47, Jonathan Weiss escribió:
> > El Jueves, 14 de Octubre de 2004 13:20, Jose M Rodriguez escribió:
> >> El Jueves, 14 de Octubre de 2004 11:53, Sergei Kolobov escribió:
> >>> On 2004-10-14 at 00:54 +0200, Sebastian Schulze Struchtrup wrote:
> >>>> I thought of a way to specify configurations to build several
> >
> > [ ... ]
> >
> >>> FLAVOURS= gtk kde athena
> >>>
> >>> which produces the corresponding vim-gtk, vim-kde, and vim-athena
> >>> packages from a *signle* port, without a need to create a
> >>> multitude of slave ports.
> >>>
> >>> Is there anybody working to bring this feature in our
> >>> bsd.port.mk?
> >>>
> >>> Sergei
> >>
> >> It not so esay.  OpenBSD port system is binary oriented (And I
> >> think NetBSD pkgsrc also).  Even installing from ports, they make
> >> first de package and then install.
> >
> > It must say:
> >
> > It's not so easy.  OpenBSD ports system is binary oriented (like
> > rpm and NetBSD pkgsrc, I think).  Even installing from ports, they
> > make first a package and then install from that.
>
> BTW, I like this approach much more!
> Make a package out of the port and then install it, it is much more
> meaningful .
>
> Also the 'make package' target in OpenBSD does not install the
> package as in FreeBSD, also more meaningful .
>
> Greets,
> Jonathan
>

I can't even imagine this.  We have more than 11.000 ports now.  You may 
use NetBSD pkgsrc or openpkg (rpm) if you like.  They work on FreeBSD.

Also, the actual ports system permit you affront some things that you 
can't take with a binary system.

--
  josemi