Upgrade Tool

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.

Good point. 

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
Type: application/pgp-signature
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 mailing list