Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 19:08:40 +0100 From: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> To: alexus <alexus@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports vs packages Message-ID: <20120109190840.9f4db334.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <CAJxePN%2BWrr6K83RGFGERzJGUXc24i95BemPOgxqAJW_2Lsfjpg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAJxePN%2BWrr6K83RGFGERzJGUXc24i95BemPOgxqAJW_2Lsfjpg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 12:17:37 -0500, alexus wrote: > Ports vs Packages? > > /usr/ports vs pkg_* > > pros/cons In short: ports: pro: most current, if properly updated build from source (security!) apply optimization (speed!) apply compile-time options (functionality!) highly configurable easy updating of installed stuff cons: requires time requires disk space requires CPU packages: pro: fast installation less typing works good on low resource systems cons: not "bleeding edge" not all ports available as packages primarily means of "first time installation" The list could go on for hours. Consensus: Use a port management tool (such as portmaster or even portupgrade) if you don't want to deal with "bare ports". Furthermore, consult the mailing list archives for more elaborate answers and discussions. :-) -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120109190840.9f4db334.freebsd>