defining dependencies for ports

[Alex Zbyslaw]

Owen G wrote:

>You are aware that there exists
>1. ports = source = must be compiled = "make install" (as above)
>2. packages = executable packages = precompiled = "pkgadd -r . . ."
>
>  
>
Whilst your description of ports and packages is correct...

>So unless you're running a custom kernel, there's no advantage of ports
>over packages.
>
...this is not.

Ports are useful :

   1) For any package with multiple compile-time options (e.g. apache) 
where *you* want to choose those options rather than be stuck with the 
ones the *package* was compiled with (c.f. Linux rpms)

   2) If you want to be as up-to-date as possible - packages take time 
to pre-compile and can lag the ports tree a little

   3) If require the source code (for maintaining local patches; because 
another port or some other local software needs it)

I'm not aware that a custom kernel has any relevance whatsoever.  
Perhaps you meant "unless you have used some cpu-specific compile flag 
in make.conf" but I don't think even that would make a difference.

Also, ports and packages are managed much more easily with a tool like 
portupgrade or portmanager.  I prefer the former because it has never 
core-dumped on me, and feels more robust and well maintained.

If you have multiple machines you keep in sync, then portupgrade -p or 
pkg_create -b can be used to create local packages with *your* 
compile-time options that other local machines can use.

--Alex