alternative options for ports

[Michael Nottebrock]

On Thursday 14 October 2004 15:50, Fernan Aguero wrote:

> IMHO, what we're discussing here, as many people more or less
> directly pointed out, are the differences between a binary
> oriented installation system, versus the source oriented
> FreeBSD ports system.

This is a misunderstanding on your part. FreeBSD (ports) isn't "source 
oriented". Gentoo is source oriented. Packages built from ports are not just 
some weird side-product, port maintainers need to actively care about the 
packages produced from their ports.

> Thus, you always end up reasoning that building from source
> is the way to go, if you want to have control over the
> resulting binaries. Even in binary oriented systems.

This is exactly why we need more fine-grained (slave-)-ports that translate 
features into binary packages which can be added and removed easily. If a 
user asks "How can I get this or that feature in $package" and the answer is 
"you need install the ports-collection, set some option and then recompile 
the port" it means that the port is flawed and a slave-port which translates 
the feature into a binary package is needed.

-- 
   ,_,   | Michael Nottebrock               | lofi at freebsd.org
 (/^ ^\) | FreeBSD - The Power to Serve     | http://www.freebsd.org
   \u/   | K Desktop Environment on FreeBSD | http://freebsd.kde.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20041015/34049a86/attachment.bin