ports vs packages

Dmitry Sarkisov ait_mlist at rocc.ru
Tue Jan 10 09:45:32 UTC 2012

On 10-01-2012, Tue [08:51:33], n j wrote:
> 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

Would be nice to know if there any plans on switching to pkgng or any other pkg management 
system in a future.


Dmitry Sarkisov

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list