ports vs packages

Peter fbsdq at peterk.org
Tue Jan 10 14:36:14 UTC 2012

> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 7:12 AM, Dick Hoogendijk <dick at nagual.nl> wrote:
>> Op 10-1-2012 12:36, Eric Masson schreef:
>>> Dick Hoogendijk<dick at nagual.nl>  writes:
>>> Hi,
>>>> As I write in another reply: that's true and totally stupid imo.
>>> *You* think it's stupid.
>> Yes, as I wrote: "stupid imo"
>> But thanks again for your reply. You may be right but I still feel it's
>> better to *have* the pache module and disable it than to *have to* use
>> ports
>> just to get it.
> IMO it's stupid as well and I second Dick's opinion. The module
> doesn't hurt anyone, and reduces confusion. I think that PHP is still
> more heavily deployed on mod_php than on anything else. The Apache
> module should be built by default unless there is a really strong
> argument as to why it shouldn't.
> --
> Alejandro Imass

When I do pkg_add -r php I'm supposed to install apache as a dependency to
that package ?  Then people will ask why apache and all its glory is
installed and we'll be back to this same argument but in reverse.

  All my stuff runs on 'cheap' hardware, so I build most items, removing
crud I don't need and will never use. [portmaster, list all the
dependencies, then do 'pkg_add' on the ones I made no change in
'make-config']. Lean mean serving machine vs. everything and the kitchen
sink all purpose serving machine.

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list