FreeBSD Ports vs. Gentoo Portage (a matter of concept)

[Norberto Meijome]

martinko wrote:

> 
> i already raised the following issue with pkgtools.sonf here on MLs some
> time ago but i didn't get a response i'd be happy with:
> i want to make sure that a certain port will be compiled with a certain
> make argument/flag. there are MAKE_ARGS in port tools but these are
> used/applied differently depending on whether the port is compiled
> directly or indirectly via a metaport and also if it's being compiled
> for the 1st time or again. :-((

hmm i wasn't aware of those subtleties... portupgrade + pkgtools.conf
seem to behave pretty well to me (again, maybe they are not compiling
the way I need with no negative side effects that I can notice.

> 
> besides, i should say i'm using mainly FreeBSD and occasionally i'm
> playing with Gentoo but i consider the quality and stability of ports
> provided to be (much) better than that of apps via portage. also,
> syncing and updating portage tree is much more heavy (by which i mean it
> takes much longer and downloads much more data) than updating ports
> collection

ah, definitely - fbsd port system seems to me much more stable and well
behaved (it works as it should). and coupled with packages, it's just
great.

> (especially since portsnap has appeared).

i have to say i still use cvsup...will have to give portsnap a try

> not to mention that
>  Gentoo's system/base layout is still heavy evolving and frequent
> changes to the format, contents and location of their /etc files are
> happening quite so often, which wouldn't make any admin too happy.
> 

true. though the system/layout it is evolving to is quite nice, IMHO.
the "evolving too fast" feeling may come from being linux after all ;)
Again, i think it's the best distro around for powerusers.

Beto