Ports vs packages

[Gregory Byshenk]

On Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 01:01:24PM +0200, Jos Chrispijn wrote:
> On 26-8-2018 2:07, Pete Wright wrote:
> > one thing i do for my systems is if there is an update to a port i 
> > need/want to test before the official build cluster is done is run a 
> > "make package" in the port directory.? then i can install the updated 
> > code as a pkg for future upgrade convenience.? this works great for 
> > ports without many external dependencies at build-time, not so much 
> > when things like llvm need to be build ;)
> 
> I did that once myself but ended in total chaos because I found out that 
> using ports and packages next to each other is not a good marriage.
> Port options that may have been enabled may be overuled by packages 
> (which are always built using the default options). Not for a specific 
> port but with regards to the depencies is will us (and which may already 
> been installed as packages).
> 
> I am quite a nub on this, so perhaps the problems were otherwise. Since 
> I completely switched to packages, these issues are gone.

If you are using packages by default, then this shouldn't
really be a problem. Your packages should have default 
options, so if you build one port - using the default 
options! - then there should be no serious conflict. At
least when there are few/no dependencies, as Pete notes.

Where you can get into problems is if you are building 
using ports by default, along with non-standard options,
and then try to add packages. That can get very ugly.

-- 
gregory byshenk  -  gbyshenk at byshenk.net  -  Leiden, NL