From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 19 12:43:05 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CBC00A89 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 12:43:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from blue.qeng-ho.org (blue.qeng-ho.org [217.155.128.241]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A5F7A3 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 12:43:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fileserver.home.qeng-ho.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fileserver.home.qeng-ho.org (8.14.7/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s2JCguaU007385; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 12:42:57 GMT (envelope-from freebsd@qeng-ho.org) Message-ID: <532990D0.3060005@qeng-ho.org> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 12:42:56 +0000 From: Arthur Chance User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Martin Braun , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD is really great.. BUT.. References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 12:43:05 -0000 On 19/03/2014 10:34, Martin Braun wrote: > FreeBSD is really great.. BUT.. > > I stopped using FreeBSD when it was about 5.x or something because I found > I spend more time compiling than I did managing our server room. I went > with Debian (and the beloved apt-get tool) and I never looked back. > > Then I needed to test different containers out so I tested Linux-VServer, > Xen, UML, and other stuff, and naturally I had to test FreeBSD Jails. I > decided to use ezjail and I noticed that FreeBSD has gotten some new really > cool tools and jails combined with ZFS are incredible. > > So pkg_add is gone and now there is the new and improved pkg and together > with "freebsd-update" it is possible to keep a system upgraded at all times > using ONLY binary packages, which are great! > > The whole point of the ports system is as stated on the OpenBSD FAQ: > > "The end result of the porting effort are ready-to-install binary > packages." > > So great.. yes? > > NO! > > Why not? > > Because still the FreeBSD ports team doesn't agree with that notion from > the OpenBSD FAQ about packages. > > The binary packages on FreeBSD are compiled with so few options available > that you end up compiling the whole bunch from source anyway! > > A simple setup on a mailserver with Postfix, Dovecot, MySQL, and a couple > of other packages doesn't work using the binary packages because they are > NOT compiled to fit together! > > Now.. what the "¤"%"#!"!¤ is the point then!? Why don't we just forget > about binary packages in FreeBSD and make everyone compile? > > There's no point in making those pre-made binary packages ready for usage > when they are only freaking compiled to run alone without any kind of usage > what so ever! > > Now.. was this post an "acid reflux"? Ooh.. yeah! > > Sorry, but I really think it's a shame. > > Some don't trust binary packages from FreeBSD and some just like to tweak - > GREAT! > > But others just like to get some work done.. rather than compiling.. > compiling.. compiling..! You want Postfix, Dovecot and MySQL. I want Postfix, Dovecot2 and SQLite 3. Someone else wants Postfix, Cyrus IMAP and Postgresql. Whose personal choices should be given priority? (Rhetorical question - mine of course :-) There's not that much compiling to do anyway, probably just a few hours even on a slow machine. Set up poudriere, only recompile when there's a security patch and do very little compiling, but have a system tailored to your needs. That's what many of us do.