ports vs configure/make/make install Re: RE : Re: RE : Re: RE : Re: RE : Re: RE : Re: cheapskate webmail interface

[Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC]

On Oct 12, 2006, at 1:26 AM, Juha Saarinen wrote:

> On 10/11/06, Desmond Coughlan <coughlandesmond at yahoo.fr> wrote:
>>   Yeah. I used to do Solaris admin (Jesus, you'd never know  
>> it...), and usually prefer installing software the ./configure -->  
>> make && make install route.  Especially since a ports install  
>> doesn't tell you anything about where the software is put....
>
> It most certainly does, and also allows you to change the locations of
> the software to be installed. Have a look at the Makefile in the
> ports.

While theoretically you can change the location where stuff is put  
using ports, it does not always work out that well (I admit I could  
have screwed up).  Mainly, some ports rely on other ports.  I  
installed a bunch of stuff (gnu build stuff) that some ports relied  
on in my own dir /usr/public as a prefix.  The ports system should  
know about this (ie at later install time) but certain ports that  
rely on this stuff seem to have it hardwired that this stuff is in / 
usr/local and these ports fail.  So may ports can easily be changed,  
some ports can't.

I use ports for things like build tools, system tools, editors,   
compilers. and certain standard SW we use.  I use configure/make etc  
for my MTA, apache, php, my imap and pop servers, and lots of my  
service level software that I find much easier to customize myself  
without jumping through ports.

best
Chad

>
>
> -- 
>
> Juha
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-questions at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions- 
> unsubscribe at freebsd.org"

---
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC
Your Web App and Email hosting provider
chad at shire.net