Date: Wed, 12 Aug 98 15:24:41 +0200 From: Thierry.Herbelot@alcatel.fr To: fbsdlist@federation.addy.com Cc: questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Port vs package logic Message-ID: <H000057c01776e25@MHS> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.980812083055.10832A-100000@federation.addy.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello, >From what I've learned so far : - packages are pre-compiled directly installable applications, - ports are (essentially) the automated way of recompiling the same applications on your system. packages are great if : - you don't have the time to download sources from Internet - the compile options chosen by the release team are satisfactory. ports are preferable if : - you want to have the (almost) very latest versions of your favorite software on your box - you want to fine-tune the configuration of an application (e.g. : the package mgetty+sendfax in 2.2.5-R did not support incoming ppp sessions; for this feature, you had to use the port) Hope this helps TfH PS : the ports tree is updated via CVS, thus you can be up to date by using CVSUP (you still have to get the original sources via the 'NET) > What is the logic of a particular software package ending up in the > packages installable from sysinstall vs the ports tree? For example, I > noticed during the install of 2.2.7 that tcsh is no longer installable > from sysinstall's "Packages" option, you must install it using make in the > ports tree. Why is that? Is a ports tree install preferred in the case > where you can do either? > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?H000057c01776e25>