Old ports bugs analyzis

[Garrett Cooper]

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 12:59 AM, Arseny Nasokin <eirnym at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 31 Mar 2010, at 10:20, Garrett Cooper <yanefbsd at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 9:36 PM, Arseny Nasokin <eirnym at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 31 Mar 2010, at 04:14, Garrett Cooper <yanefbsd at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Today binary packages are rolled as generic as possible provided the
>>>> architecture they're built for and are monolithic, meaning that they
>>>> contain the build, lib, patch, and run dependencies required to build
>>>> everything, as they're generated after an in-place install in
>>>> ${PREFIX} .
>>>>
>>>> One of many ideas we were kicking around on #bsdports was to produce
>>>> `fat packages' which would be usable in package installation and ports
>>>> building scenarios (similar to the headache that exists in many Linux
>>>> distros with -devel and non-devel packages), but the user could
>>>> specify whether or not they wanted the -devel pieces or not (if it
>>>> applied) -- so only one set of packages would need to be distributed.
>>>>
>>>> We didn't really kick the idea around too much, but it was still a
>>>> novelty that should be `nursed' to a proper conclusion as it would
>>>> allow folks who roll packages and install on embedded systems /
>>>> install bases, or prefer installing via packages, to have small
>>>> install bases, and smaller potential binary roll up after the fact.
>>>
>>> I can't see and discuss in IRC due browser and platform(software part)
>>> limitations in nearest future.
>>>
>>> I don't clearly understand, will be ports system removed? Will there will
>>> be
>>> sourse and binary packages or will it be Gentoo-style "portages", which
>>> will
>>> provide installation from binary or source with options?
>>
>> Gentoo portage is maintainer hell; we have enough fun with ports not
>> to get stuck in that mess.
>>
>>> Almost all packages in my systems has custom settings.
>>
>> Which is exactly why I advocate using ports for my desktops and
>> servers. I just have other vested interests outside of my personal
>> machines where binary packages are better suited than installed a
>> boatload of packages from source.
>>
>> Cool thing is though, if people use standard packages, there's a
>> greater chance of there not being stability issues with the packages
>> themselves right (or at least all of the issues will be known
>> upfront)?
>>
>> Thanks :),
>> -Garrett
>
> If we are talk about specialized optimisations or customisations we should
> talk about ports system. If we talk about desktop machines, there binary
> packages are better in most cases (for example, using Synaptics frontend)

YMMV, but most of the time binary packages are built with the idea in
mind that it will meet the majority of the end-users' needs instead of
a specific case (unless there is a good reason for there being
variance, in that case ports are split, i.e. vim, vim-lite, etc).

There is a small amount of optimization that can be gained by using
proper CFLAGS as well with more modern hardware (let's face it.. the
default flags that binary packages are built with are meant to run on
generic old-school IBM clones all the way up to the most bleeding edge
AMD and Intel processors for instance) -- so if you use the
appropriate CPUTYPE and CFLAGS you can gain performance wise, because
you're tailoring the programs you compile to meet your system's
capabilities. You just have to be careful because ricing is something
that Gentoo users got themselves in trouble with back around 2003 ~
2004, and then I think that most people learned that they weren't
really gaining much in performance and were losing in stability, so
they stopped ricing their compiles.

Cheers,
-Garrett