Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 16:01:27 -0400 From: Daniel Corbe <corbe@corbe.net> To: Arthur Chance <freebsd@qeng-ho.org> Cc: Matthew Seaman <matthew@freebsd.org>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD is really great.. BUT.. Message-ID: <ygfsiqec608.fsf@corbe.net> In-Reply-To: <ygfwqfqc63m.fsf@corbe.net> (Daniel Corbe's message of "Wed, 19 Mar 2014 15:59:25 -0400") References: <CAFNm86TGi5VDznAg3FU%2BVLWD9b3fLo-gA1fzhEhseMZfe2hNuA@mail.gmail.com> <5329B35B.8040005@freebsd.org> <5329C1C0.6070004@qeng-ho.org> <ygfwqfqc63m.fsf@corbe.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Daniel Corbe <corbe@corbe.net> writes: > Arthur Chance <freebsd@qeng-ho.org> writes: > >> On 19/03/2014 15:10, Matthew Seaman wrote: >>> On 03/19/14 10:34, Martin Braun wrote: >>>> The binary packages on FreeBSD are compiled with so few options availa= ble >>>> that you end up compiling the whole bunch from source anyway! >>>> >>>> A simple setup on a mailserver with Postfix, Dovecot, MySQL, and a cou= ple >>>> of other packages doesn't work using the binary packages because they = are >>>> NOT compiled to fit together! >>>> >>>> Now.. what the "=C2=A4"%"#!"!=C2=A4 is the point then!? Why don't we j= ust forget >>>> about binary packages in FreeBSD and make everyone compile? >>> >>> Because we're in a state of transition at the moment. We have not yet >>> completely obsoleted the old pkg_tools (soon though...), so there are >>> changes to the ports tree we cannot make just yet. pkg(8) itself is >>> right now in the process of growing a much more sophisticated solver, >>> which will mean much more intelligence about constructing dependency >>> trees based on the capabilities and requirements of the available >>> packages, rather than the RUN_DEPENDS settings pulled from the ports tr= ee. >>> >>> Yes, it's frustrating at the moment since we're in a half-way house >>> between the old-style ports and the regime where binary packages >>> basically 'just work' for the vast majority of users. (It's likely that >>> there will always be people who want odd combinations of options who >>> will be best advised to compile their own, but ideally they should be >>> few and far between.) >>> >>> The best user experience at the moment seems to be for people building >>> packages using poudriere (or similar) and running their own repo to >>> distribute them. But that's just at the moment, and could well change >>> pretty soon. >> >> That's good to hear and keep up the good work, but I suspect there are >> some awkward customers (like me) who will always have to roll their >> own. On world facing servers in particular I cut out large chunks of >> the base system that aren't used, on the grounds that if it's present >> it probably won't have security vulnerabilities, but if it's absent it >> definitely can't have them. (Similarly, removing the tool chain on a >> server prevents one well known attack escalation.) Some ports rely by >> default on base system features I remove, so I'll always have to build >> custom versions of those. However, if the pkgng work can satisfy 99% >> of the FreeBSD audience the team will get major applause from me. >> > > The current status quo is acceptable. Pre-built binary packages solve > 80% of my problems and I have to build the other 20% from ports. But > that's still 80% less work for me to do. Sorry for double posting, but it also helps to have purpose-built servers. Trying to shove everything you want to do on one or a handful of boxes is just a lot of work anyways and pkg won't fix that problem.=20=20
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ygfsiqec608.fsf>