Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 11:59:01 +0100 From: Arthur Chance <freebsd@qeng-ho.org> To: Luca Ferrari <fluca1978@infinito.it>, freebsd-questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ports, packages, jails Message-ID: <555C68F5.4080205@qeng-ho.org> In-Reply-To: <CAKoxK%2B4fAsPATNfHEvkneUFxN_hJyCQ4fGeRq8rC8G-n_JTVPQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAKoxK%2B4fAsPATNfHEvkneUFxN_hJyCQ4fGeRq8rC8G-n_JTVPQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 20/05/2015 11:14, Luca Ferrari wrote: > Hi all, > reading some recent discussions I start wondering what the real > problem with mixing ports and packages is and why one should use jails > to build ports (e.g., as poudriere does). What is the real advantage > of using a building system with regard to a "normal" usage of ports > and packages? To answer your questions in reverse order, building in a jail has the advantage that it doesn't affect the main host until everything has been compiled successfully. In the past, when I used portmaster for updating, on a few occasions it would would update some ports and then fail on one with a buggy update, leaving my machine in mixed state that meant I couldn't use a graphical desktop and/or some services didn't work. Making the update of the running machine separate from rebuilding the ports in poudriere means I don't get those problems. As for mixing ports and packages, there are a couple of possible problems. One is that using ports probably means you've changed some options to non-default values. Packages are built with default options, so clashes can occur. The other is that (re)building all the packages takes time, so for a period a package may be at an earlier version than the same software built from /usr/ports. This can also cause problems. -- Those who do not learn from computing history are doomed to GOTO 1
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?555C68F5.4080205>