alternative options for ports
michaelnottebrock at gmx.net
Fri Oct 15 05:20:07 PDT 2004
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
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20041015/34049a86/attachment.bin
More information about the freebsd-ports