From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 19 14:53:11 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D1AE90E for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 14:53:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx02.qsc.de (mx02.qsc.de [213.148.130.14]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA330105 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 14:53:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from r56.edvax.de (port-92-195-67-138.dynamic.qsc.de [92.195.67.138]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx02.qsc.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C755A27610; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 15:53:01 +0100 (CET) Received: from r56.edvax.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by r56.edvax.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with SMTP id s2JEqb1V003277; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 15:52:37 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from freebsd@edvax.de) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 15:52:37 +0100 From: Polytropon To: Martin Braun Subject: Re: FreeBSD is really great.. BUT.. Message-Id: <20140319155237.accb3797.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: References: Organization: EDVAX X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.1.1 (GTK+ 2.24.5; i386-portbld-freebsd8.2) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: Polytropon List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 14:53:11 -0000 On Wed, 19 Mar 2014 11:34:36 +0100, Martin Braun wrote: > FreeBSD is really great.. BUT.. >=20 > 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. Even on FreeBSD 5, binary package installation and upgrading was possible (even though not as comfortable as with pkg today). System tools like pkg_add and additional tools like portmaster made it relatively easy to avoid compiling stuff (except where you really wanted, required or intended it). > 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 real= ly > cool tools and jails combined with ZFS are incredible. Many features found in the commercial Solaris operating system have been implemented in FreeBSD, as you noted Jails and ZFS, but also dtrace or BEs. Comparable and reliably working things like those do not exist in Linux at the moment. > 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 tim= es > using ONLY binary packages, which are great! It really is. The only thing that should happen (and probably will happen) is that the amount of packages that can be installed via pkg should grow. Then it will be easy to install things like office suites with localized support as it has been possible with the old pkg_add a decade ago. :-) > The whole point of the ports system is as stated on the OpenBSD FAQ: >=20 > "The end result of the porting effort are ready-to-install binary > packages." This is _one_ possible end result, but it's definitely not the only one. There are situation where you want or need to compile stuff (for example because a specific combination of built-time options need to be set which differ from the default options that are used when the binary packages are built, or when you have to apply specific optimization). The Ports Collection basically is a means to install, modify, upgrade and delete software, not more, not less, and it's based on source code (which can be fetched and patched). It's an infrastructure that conforms to the concept of FreeBSD being a _general purpose OS_ which is not tied to being a server or desktop OS, but can be either of them, or both of them. > So great.. yes? >=20 > NO! >=20 > Why not? >=20 > Because still the FreeBSD ports team doesn't agree with that notion from > the OpenBSD FAQ about packages. This is because the FreeBSD team does not share this opinion, for a reason. Maybe it's the reason I mentioned, maybe it's something else. > The binary packages on FreeBSD are compiled with so few options available > that you end up compiling the whole bunch from source anyway! What is "so few"? Someone, i. e. the port maintainer, decided the default options where he is sure the package will build _and_ will be suitable for the typical use case. However, there are imaginable use cases where the default options simply don't work. It may be OpenOffice which needs to be in German instead of English, it may be mplayer to include or exclude mencoder, or all the codecs, or only a very specific subset of codecs, or specific CFLAGS to get it running on limited resources. Or it's X which should not require HAL and DBUS because those aren't needed. To get a feeling for how many options are involved when building packages, just go to the KDE 4 metaport and run "make config-recursive". You'll be surprised. :-) > 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! This is quite possible. Many server admins (as you're talking about a mail server with a database) will tell you that they prefer building software from source, which isn't that uncommon as today's servers have more than sufficient resources to run a "compile orgy" without significant system load. Also consider that a port maintainer simply cannot imagine all possible combinations of the software he maintains and software that is being maintained by other people. And what if someone wants to use SQLite instead of MySQL as a database? How should that be mapped to "statically connected" packages? > Now.. what the "=A4"%"#!"!=A4 is the point then!? Why don't we just forget > about binary packages in FreeBSD and make everyone compile? Because there are situation where you just don't want to compile, or _can't_ compile due to limited resources. In that case, "pkg add " is more than welcome. Now that upgrading is also possible that way, FreeBSD leaves the _choice_ to you. FreeBSD basically is not about forcing you to do something in a determined and restricted way. > 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 usa= ge > what so ever! It should not be that way, and I have to admit that I've not seen the situation you're describing, even though I'm a big fan of precompiled packages (and only tend to compile from source when it's really needed). > Sorry, but I really think it's a shame. Of course there are limitations in what pkg can do at the moment, but in my opinion, it's an improvement in comparison to pkg_*, and there is still development ongoing to make it even better. > Some don't trust binary packages from FreeBSD and some just like to tweak= - > GREAT! True. And _possible_. > But others just like to get some work done.. rather than compiling.. > compiling.. compiling..! Then don't compile. Use the binary packages as they are available. And keep in mind that compiling stuff isn't that complicated anymore, as home PCs with their plentycore CPUs and tons of RAM and endless hard disks offer more system resources than a "higher class" server 10 years ago. :-) --=20 Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...