Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 10:14:33 +0200 From: n j <nino80@gmail.com> To: User Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: new package system proposal Message-ID: <92bcbda50904090114r2924d03p606d30a7fc91f84d@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200904090916.12786.j.mckeown@ru.ac.za> References: <49D76B02.4060201@onetel.com> <200904080859.41807.j.mckeown@ru.ac.za> <54db43990904081224l7c006143icac411c482401620@mail.gmail.com> <200904090916.12786.j.mckeown@ru.ac.za>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I'd like to use this opportunity to generally support this and any other ideas taking direction of making binary installs and upgrades easier and more manageable. I recognize the need for people to configure custom options and compile from ports (that is why any new system *must* be compatible with ports), however, it should be noted that there's a lot of people running simple LAMP servers, almost exclusively using default options, who would greatly benefit from better binary package support. I've already ranted about this (http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2008-December/188119.html) in a slightly different context (I talked about -SECURITY equivalent instead of -DESKTOP that the OP suggests) with almost the same idea - make it easy for people who are interested in running stable, secure servers do binary upgrades without the hassle of going through a major system recompile because of, for example, openldap shared library version bump. Regards, -- Nino
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?92bcbda50904090114r2924d03p606d30a7fc91f84d>