which pkg repository with 9.1

[Polytropon]

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 21:04:40 -0600, Joseph A. Nagy, Jr wrote:
> I've almost always built from source since I switched to FreeBSD (I 
> sometimes, during the initial installation, used pkgs), it's longer but 
> more reliable.

I'm also doing this since I have sufficient CPU and RAM. :-)

However, for systems that are low on capacity, using precompiled
packages is a really comfortable way to initially install software.
The traditional "pkg_add -r <stuff>" was possible for most of the
available software with two exceptions:

1. software that needed compile-time options to make them work as
   intended (e. g. mplayer with mencoder and all codecs),

2. software that had no packages (e. g. german OpenOffice which had
   a "pkg_add -r de-openoffice" way in the past).

With pkgng and the new "pkg" command set, not just installing would
be possible (as known from pkg_add), but also updating (like with
freebsd-update, but for ports). At the moment, this functionality
is not provided, but it should become possible in the future,
obsoleting the traditional pkg_* tools, while the use of ports,
either with the "bare" make framework (make update, relying on
SVN instead of CVS, make install, make deinstall and so on) or
by the use of a port management tool (like portmaster) will of
course still be possible. I know even pkgng can't deal with the
two exceptions mentioned above, but it will add the binary updating
and therefor make system _and_ software updates easier, especially
when you're low on resources. It's also a welcome means if you
need to perform an offline installation, i. e. you don't have
Internet connection to obtain binary packages or sources, but
you can install from optical media instead.

The only problem I see (or which I hope not to see) is the
upcoming Linuxism of repositories. Plural: many of them. By
the use of the traditional pkg_* tools and the make framework
for ports, you don't have to deal with selecting repositories.
The correct files will be served. I hope there won't be a situation
in the future where arbitrary or contradicting repositories
"free" and "non-free", "vendor-provided", "private", "development",
different in priority and content, will be required to be chosen
by the user just to make basic things work (again).

For those who have ever tried to explain "repositories" to a
novice user in regards of a Linux distributions: You probably
know what I'm talking about. :-)




-- 
Polytropon
Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...