Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 03:58:51 -0600 From: "Mike Meyer" <mwm-dated-1015840731.ee9f74@mired.org> To: Justin L Boss <jlboss@yahoo.com> Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Port Colection Message-ID: <15493.59483.178191.630240@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <35560380@toto.iv>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Justin L Boss <jlboss@yahoo.com> types: > Why do most people use the port collection instead of the package > collection? I only use the PC if I cant find a pkg. The pkg takes > considerable less time and space, So why use the port unless you have to. Since nobody else mentioned it, I'm going to add one of mine. The others are part of it as well, but this one is the one that pushed me over the edge. As the sysadmin, /usr/local is *mine*. It's been that way since at least v6. The OS distribution has no business installing software packages there. So I set LOCALBASE to something else, and compile the port. And when they don't compile because of that, I - usually - fix them and send patches to the maintainer. By not mixing things that I can download from FreeBSD with things that I've written myself, or downloaded and installed other than as a port, I keep my file hierarchy cleaner. Since the ports mechanism is supposed to provide a way to do this, it's much easier to relocate ports than to relocate the place I put such locally maintained packages. I note that at least one of the other BSD's took that route, as well as the openpackage project. <mike -- Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15493.59483.178191.630240>