Ports are faster than packages?

Polytropon freebsd at edvax.de
Mon Jun 22 15:32:41 UTC 2020

On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 16:39:42 +0300, nikitastepanov113 at yandex.ru wrote:
> Ports are faster than packages?

Yes. Which means no. :-)

In general, the set of options with which the binary packages
are built by the FreeBSD port building and delivering systems
is to make sure the port works well in most possible cases.
For edge cases, where different compile-time options might
be needed, the user has no other choice than building from
source. This enables two possibilities:

1. increasing features, which might increase resource usage
   and add further dependencies, or

2. reduce features, and apply platform-specific optimization,
   which can lead to faster programs.

Especially the part of options that effect optimization has
been a valuable help in the past, for example, when you
wanted to run a program on a low-spec system, you could
add optimization for that system, and the program would
then run faster than the corresponding "canned" package.

Technically, a port installed from source is nothing else
than a binary package: The building process creates a
package, the package is then installed. It doesn't matter
to pkg if a package comes from a local source of from the
FreeBSD server. _That_ doesn't make anything slower or
faster. But as I said, tweaking the options to deviate
from the standard building options _can_ have that effect,
but it can also have the exact opposite effect.

So the difference is not "port or package", because it's
the same, the difference is what options have been in
effect when building from source, no matter where that

You can find more information in chapter 4 of The FreeBSD
Handbook, "nstalling Applications: Packages and Ports":


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

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list