The ports are really funcional?
freebsd at edvax.de
Tue Nov 1 06:28:22 UTC 2011
On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 06:08:42 -0700, perryh at pluto.rain.com wrote:
> My experience is exactly the opposite. The biggest problem I've
> had with ports came from trying to follow the recommended approach
> of updating the tree after installing, before trying to build
This is a _conditional_ suggestion. For those who follow
a -STABLE branch, using a continuously updated ports tree,
in combination with updating the OS and the installed
applications, might sound more interesting than the
opposite approach: Installing and _using_ a -RELEASE
(and often only adding the security updates) and
working with the "frozen" ports tree of that particular
Note the difference of -RELEASE and -STABLE - you'll
find similarities in handling the ports tree.
There is no clear definition of "use _this_ on a server,
use _that_ on a desktop"; individual updating and using
habits are important here.
> In retrospect, I'm not at all sure why anyone would be surprised
> at this finding -- or why "update it first" would be recommended.
> The ports tree is known to be buildable and self-consistent when
> packages are built for a release, and that version of the tree
> is distributed with the release.
Correct. Especially for offline operations, this is an
approach often recommended.
> If something won't build on a
> freshly-installed -RELEASE, but the build cluster _was_ able to
> build the package, there pretty much has to be something wrong with
> the local installation.
And in that case, exchanging a non-compiling port (for
whatever reason) with a binary package from the RELEASE
set of archives is a possible way to solve the problem.
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
More information about the freebsd-questions