From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 7 20:34:12 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3669106564A for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2012 20:34:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from djackson452@gmail.com) Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f54.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f54.google.com [209.85.215.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AC9D8FC08 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2012 20:34:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: by lagv3 with SMTP id v3so10884954lag.13 for ; Wed, 07 Mar 2012 12:34:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=Ne59Oc2YYU5WAHtXtexgIfIBk/Ci5bj4Fj/Yh469fcE=; b=ZCtZ5oBfGnYa5EHWID6p+BrKmEXCfchJOmxoaNfaKqgF8Cob08Tk9R1mX+AFsRHoyK IwBNSyzY8rq8/3FDUzzKvjMgbLAZ7UWCw6qpX4VFb5IsaDvnrM8QqWkPRl68E1zZKFT0 P3I0LjQehBrlAm/P4PkiV6BW4pkvqxaSYbD60OKGXc2dOe05sA5YjeTc06/IB16b3iu/ PJzNCl8pWWUXidjGWPDbYnU422zQwBK9QS8mCwa/fYw7rtebMNCEp4Fc9o6TdyU/1euf 1z/RLgHug+qvKYSUUOMPF/qBvY9uFBaw4rWG+F40EH0JMESzKRSRQ8lIl0Tl7ciKExA2 ALuA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.152.125.41 with SMTP id mn9mr2515702lab.30.1331152450985; Wed, 07 Mar 2012 12:34:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.112.45.137 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Mar 2012 12:34:10 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20120307191246.GB2241@ankh-morpork.net> References: <20120307175852.7de93d6f.freebsd@edvax.de> <20120307191246.GB2241@ankh-morpork.net> Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 15:34:10 -0500 Message-ID: From: David Jackson To: Benjamin Tovar , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: Subject: Re: Still having trouble with package upgrades X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 20:34:13 -0000 On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Benjamin Tovar wrote: > On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 12:57:46PM -0500, David Jackson wrote: > > > > So it seems like a happy compromise here. You will get what you need > > and us newbies and other users who really dont want the extra > > trouble of compiling will get our binaries. Everyone gets what they > > want and is happy, it seems. > > > > Yes, this sounds awfully good, except that I think it is much harder > than you think. First, some options are mutually exclusive > (i.e. ncurses vs slang)... so, maybe there are two, or three versions > of the same package... and again, this sounds awfully good, except for > the limited and volunteered time of a port maintainer. A happy > compromise might be then to have binary packages of popular ports, > which is how we have it now. > > its really not that difficult and this is not an issue tht cannot be dealt with in the default binary package configuration. Both slang and ncurses could be installed and applications could be linked to one or the other. If ncurses is a better choice for instance, it couild be by default linked to that. So if a package has a choice oif being linked to ncurses or slang, then one package will be built, linked to ncurses or whatever is the generally best option and that build of the application will be the binary package. The point i would like to make is, for us to have good binary packages, we dont need to create a different package for every combination of compile time options, but instead compile with the best default set of options. If a user wants more flexibility than that, they are free to compile with ports. the availability of a binary package in no way whatsoever limits the availability of the option to compile a port if the user wants to do that. its not an either or thing. Where two options are mutually exclusive, the best option should be chosen. Where the two options are not mutually exclusive and add a feature or capability to the software, the option can be included. run time configuration settigns should be set to the most reasonable values. > Second, and I think this the most important reason, ports put the > responsibility of the system on the user. They force you to make > decisions on exactly what software is installed. You want the > stability and freedom of FreeBSD without this responsibility, and this > seems very hard to compromise (e.g., macosx and most linux > distributions remove the responsibility by making all these choices > for you). > > Is this newbie friendly? Probably not. Does it need to be? Well, it > would be nice if more people use it, but if we remove the > responsibility from the user, then it would not be FreeBSD, it would > be something else. (Like Debian GNU/kFreeBSD, which sounds like what > you are looking for.) > > The fact is, again, allowing the user to not go into that kind of detail and not mess around with compile time options, does not prevent in any way you from doing so. the OS should be about freedom, Not YOU forcing your ideas about how the system should be used on everyone else. as I repeatedly said, you are free to configure your applications compile to your hearts content, i support you having that freedom.You are the one in fact who has been trying to take away my freedom of not having to mess around with compile options if I dont want to. > -- > just let users decide if they want to compile port or use pre compiled package for themselves > Benjamin Tovar > >