From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 19 20:01:29 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 B0DBA77B for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 20:01:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from a0i55.smtpcorp.com (a0i55.smtpcorp.com [64.131.95.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 70C917DE for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 20:01:29 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=smtpcorp.com; s=a0_1; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Date:References:Subject:Cc:To:From; bh=8kMYcOT4zPTln8pGXyQZTm6IT6YG0pjVFRxLp9JzPjo=; b=DWJkCfVnyHIWtxq3MUzhBQTC8cUNkIQrQxRcId0R5mwFSbQ4ZLXMtzWAKlayD/fRZM6UnmJ3lq2FgyfUhrjpQJZQYdjb0SYE6n3W19RW9qJLZ3w+xq4tGs369sznCtFB7H/jqqbEuVcmId0dKrLhiqLjafruGEoQjv5YcyhnXEI=; From: Daniel Corbe To: Arthur Chance Subject: Re: FreeBSD is really great.. BUT.. References: <5329B35B.8040005@freebsd.org> <5329C1C0.6070004@qeng-ho.org> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 16:01:27 -0400 In-Reply-To: (Daniel Corbe's message of "Wed, 19 Mar 2014 15:59:25 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Smtpcorp-Track: 443793062.1.7039791 Cc: Matthew Seaman , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org 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 20:01:29 -0000 Daniel Corbe writes: > Arthur Chance 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