Official FreeBSD Binary Packages now available for pkgng
freebsd at edvax.de
Thu Oct 31 04:12:11 UTC 2013
On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 20:59:54 -0700, David Newman wrote:
> On 10/30/13 7:10 PM, Bryan Drewery wrote:
> > You can now either continue to use ports with portmaster/portupgrade, as
> > before or switch to using binary packages only.
> Is this really an "or" or is it an "and"?
> For example, can a system use binary packages for most things, but use
> portmaster or portupgrade on those ports where some special config
> options are needed?
To extend the question, does the traditional method of using
ports (without portmaster et al.) also seem to stop working?
I'd like to emphasize that the constellation you mentioned
isn't that uncommon. Take mplayer, for example; in order to
make it work properly (i. e., all codecs plus mencoder), it's
still required to compile it. My idea would be that I can
use pkg to install everything that's needed as a runtime
dependency, and only have a "make install" run for mplayer
with a custom Makefile.local (or going through "make configure"
for that matter). Localized ports (e. g. LibreOffice with
german language) could also fall into the category of "still
To be honest, there may be only a few things that need a
manual "make install" run, but those could actually be
essential. How does this interact with a system that uses
pkg for all other needs? The old pkg_* tools worked well
in such a constellation, even though it might be required
to recompile some dependent ports (according to the non-
default options that have been chosen), but in general,
that was no big deal.
Will it start being a problem now?
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
More information about the freebsd-questions