ports vs packages

[n j]

On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Alejandro Imass <ait at p2ee.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Devin Teske <devin.teske at fisglobal.com> wrote:
>> Of course, this is explicit to rather serious production environments. Desktop and casual usage ... ports may serve you better if you like to stay up-to-date rather than only upgrading once every 1-2 years.
>
> We think the opposite. Serious production environments should use
> specifically compiled ports for your needs and create packages from
> those. In fact we combine this approach with the use of EzJail and
> flavours. So I guess it all depends on the needs and what a serious
> production environment means for each company or individual.

I would tend to agree. For specific use cases, one is usually better
off having complete control over the entire build/compile process i.e.
using ports.

However, for (IMHO) majority of users the default options are usually
OK and using packages is highly desired. That is why I really look
forward to improvements of (again IMHO) obsolete binary package format
(pkg-*) and hope that either pkgng (http://wiki.freebsd.org/pkgng) or
new PBI format in PC-BSD (http://wiki.pcbsd.org/index.php/PBI9_Format)
will gain more traction in the community.

Regards,
-- 
Nino