From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 9 15:47:20 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C120D106566C for ; Thu, 9 Apr 2009 15:47:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from Ggatten@waddell.com) Received: from mailhost0.waddell.com (mailhost0.waddell.com [12.154.38.61]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 853E38FC18 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 2009 15:47:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from Ggatten@waddell.com) Received: from mailhost2.waddell.com (mailhost2.waddell.com [10.1.10.30]) by mailhost0.waddell.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n39FksXJ016285; Thu, 9 Apr 2009 10:47:09 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from Ggatten@waddell.com) Received: from mailhost2.waddell.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 254095F957; Thu, 9 Apr 2009 10:46:54 -0500 (CDT) Received: from wadpexf0.waddell.com (wadpexf0.waddell.com [192.168.204.24]) by mailhost2.waddell.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C14525F95C; Thu, 9 Apr 2009 10:46:53 -0500 (CDT) Received: from WADPEXV0.waddell.com ([192.168.204.25]) by wadpexf0.waddell.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 9 Apr 2009 10:46:53 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 10:45:58 -0500 Message-ID: <70C0964126D66F458E688618E1CD008A0793E950@WADPEXV0.waddell.com> In-Reply-To: <92bcbda50904090114r2924d03p606d30a7fc91f84d@mail.gmail.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: new package system proposal Thread-Index: Acm48Dh3prpVc/iVSRqXNh7t+h2IOwANoH6g References: <49D76B02.4060201@onetel.com><200904080859.41807.j.mckeown@ru.ac.za> <54db43990904081224l7c006143icac411c482401620@mail.gmail.com> <200904090916.12786.j.mckeown@ru.ac.za> <92bcbda50904090114r2924d03p606d30a7fc91f84d@mail.gmail.com> From: "Gary Gatten" To: "n j" , "User Questions" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Apr 2009 15:46:53.0597 (UTC) FILETIME=[67ADACD0:01C9B92A] Cc: Subject: RE: new package system proposal 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: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 15:47:21 -0000 I haven't worked with *nix os's as much as FreeBSD - Well, maybe different flavors of SCO but as far as installing apps and what not mostly FreeBSD. I've installed maybe half a dozen apps and NONE of them took less than 2 - 3 days. Part of that is my slow a$$ test system - and my ignorance, but it seems like a MAJOR hassle for even the simplest thing! It could just be me, but seems like many developers choose to link to other libraries/modules even if they just need one simple function they could build into their source directly. Hence a dependency is "needlessly" created. Multiply this 500 times and installing a simple app turns into a nightmare. I'm definitely gonna start trying to use more packages than ports, but the port system is necessary and eventually I get stuff working! G -----Original Message----- From: owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of n j Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 3:15 AM To: User Questions Subject: Re: new package system proposal 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/1881 19.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, --=20 Nino _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
"This email is intended to be reviewed by only the intended recipient and may contain information that is privileged and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, use, dissemination, disclosure or copying of this email and its attachments, if any, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender by return email and delete this email from your system."