From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 1 06:28:22 2011 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 07D73106566B for ; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 06:28:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@edvax.de) Received: from mx01.qsc.de (mx01.qsc.de [213.148.129.14]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC0848FC15 for ; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 06:28:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from r56.edvax.de (port-92-195-104-16.dynamic.qsc.de [92.195.104.16]) by mx01.qsc.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99B9D3DFDB; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 07:28:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from r56.edvax.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by r56.edvax.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with SMTP id pA16SIxQ006013; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 07:28:18 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from freebsd@edvax.de) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 07:28:18 +0100 From: Polytropon To: perryh@pluto.rain.com Message-Id: <20111101072818.ddcfbd64.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <4eafef5a.xn0KmWlZlGCMzFaA%perryh@pluto.rain.com> References: <20111031040545.cc7d874f.freebsd@edvax.de> <557A48F1-B4A0-407D-A8F1-1502990AE31E@gmail.com> <20111031182528.619b9b83.freebsd@edvax.de> <4eafef5a.xn0KmWlZlGCMzFaA%perryh@pluto.rain.com> Organization: EDVAX X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.1.1 (GTK+ 2.24.5; i386-portbld-freebsd8.2) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The ports are really funcional? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Polytropon List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 06:28:22 -0000 On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 06:08:42 -0700, perryh@pluto.rain.com wrote: > My experience is exactly the opposite. The biggest problem I've > had with ports came from trying to follow the recommended approach > of updating the tree after installing, before trying to build > anything. This is a _conditional_ suggestion. For those who follow a -STABLE branch, using a continuously updated ports tree, in combination with updating the OS and the installed applications, might sound more interesting than the opposite approach: Installing and _using_ a -RELEASE (and often only adding the security updates) and working with the "frozen" ports tree of that particular release. Note the difference of -RELEASE and -STABLE - you'll find similarities in handling the ports tree. There is no clear definition of "use _this_ on a server, use _that_ on a desktop"; individual updating and using habits are important here. > In retrospect, I'm not at all sure why anyone would be surprised > at this finding -- or why "update it first" would be recommended. > The ports tree is known to be buildable and self-consistent when > packages are built for a release, and that version of the tree > is distributed with the release. Correct. Especially for offline operations, this is an approach often recommended. > If something won't build on a > freshly-installed -RELEASE, but the build cluster _was_ able to > build the package, there pretty much has to be something wrong with > the local installation. And in that case, exchanging a non-compiling port (for whatever reason) with a binary package from the RELEASE set of archives is a possible way to solve the problem. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...