Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2014 18:56:19 +1100 From: nano <nanotek@bsdbox.co> To: Guido Falsi <madpilot@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: libiconv on 10.0-RELEASE Message-ID: <52ECA8A3.4030408@bsdbox.co> In-Reply-To: <52ECA838.6070605@FreeBSD.org> References: <52EC99E0.2080801@bsdbox.co> <52EC9C3D.6060505@FreeBSD.org> <52EC9ED4.6030604@bsdbox.co> <52ECA1ED.5030205@FreeBSD.org> <52ECA410.3050606@bsdbox.co> <52ECA567.7010109@FreeBSD.org> <52ECA628.9080801@madpilot.net> <52ECA729.90909@bsdbox.co> <52ECA838.6070605@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 1/02/2014 6:54 PM, Guido Falsi wrote: > On 02/01/14 08:50, nano wrote: >> >> I try to use packages where I can, but often programs require >> non-default build options so I have to build from ports. I'm often >> warned to not mix ports with packages; what is your take on this? >> > > It can work but better avoid it. It's not as bad as crossing the streams > but could cause problems. > > Difficult to foresee what kind of problems and why because it depends on > too many factors. > > I know users who have always been mixing a few hand build ports with a > mostly package system without problems. It can be done if one knows what > he's doing. But it's not the officially supported way of doing things. > I'll stick to ports till building my own repository then. Thanks again, Guido. I appreciate all your advice. -- bsdbox.co
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?52ECA8A3.4030408>