ports INDEX file
ben at b1c1l1.com
Fri Jul 23 20:05:15 UTC 2010
On 07/23/2010 01:56 AM, Fbsd8 wrote:
> Now about my project. Since about 4.0 I stopped using the ports tree
> method. I now all most totally use the package system. I do not upgrade
> a RELEASE but instead use the "install from scratch" method about a few
> weeks after a new RELEASE is published. So since the package system is
> also re-build a new for each new RELEASE, I am all ways in sync. Now
> there are exceptions to using packages. In my case php5 was changed 3
> RELEASES ago to no longer contain the apache module, so I now have to
> compile php5 from the port. But to short cut the compile process, I
> pre-install all of php5's dependents as packages. And of course I had to
> figure out who they all were by hand the first time and built a script
> that automates the whole procedure. I use cvsup at NEW RELEASE time to
> populate the empty ports tree with ports-base. Then I use cvsup to
> checkout the php5 make files and them "make install" and everything
> comes together just fine.
Why not build packages in-house then?
You've already assumed the bootstrapping cost of a full ports tree
checkout to do the dependency scan for php5 -- why not build the binary
package (with your relevant make options) there as well?
Then the rest of your machines can install *everything* from packages,
and therefore won't require *any* of the ports tree, not even some
subset of exceptions that need to be compiled. This would save even
more resources, since you only compile php5 once, rather than once per
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 900 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/attachments/20100723/fda7d7bb/signature.pgp
More information about the freebsd-questions