Aren Olvalde Tyr
aren.tyr at gawab.com
Tue May 2 17:27:41 UTC 2006
On Monday 01 May 2006 10:15, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> Because using binary packages much nullifies any port Makefile knobs
> that're used for compile or configure-time purposes. You're stuck using
> whatever defaults the person who built the binary package used.
On the subject of which, does anyone know if there is any convention for the
pre-built FreeBSD packages? i.e. Are they built extremely conservatively,
with all optional bits switched off, or aggressively, i.e. all optional bits
on? Or is it "default", i.e. most commonly wanted options on, more obscure
off; or finally, just purely random, down to whatever the person who built
the package happened to choose at the time depending on their mood?
> I've never "fully trusted" binary packages (I do for some ports, not for
> others) due to not knowing what options someone has built them with...
Perhaps it would be good, if, say on the corresponding port entry on the
FreeBSD ports webpage, it listed all the options used for building the binary
package. For example, for the "Package" link, instead of simply linking to
the package, it could link to a page entry listing all of the build options
used, with the package download link at the bottom. Or something like that.
Just an idea. What do people think?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20060502/e6cf04c9/attachment.pgp
More information about the freebsd-ports