From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 1 13:27:44 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 737F5106566B for ; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 13:27:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwmaillists@googlemail.com) Received: from mail-wy0-f182.google.com (mail-wy0-f182.google.com [74.125.82.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1FA48FC18 for ; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 13:27:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wyg36 with SMTP id 36so428785wyg.13 for ; Tue, 01 Nov 2011 06:27:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=G2yfhv4aqTFTBJaV2TXU0tFhrJy8Lr0P9mx8dmyADEs=; b=vhBXEa7Y8lwcWtSRv/q1gGlX0IjvIwQbBZ5Ygk4sz+UdHcvHU8ypyYcL18kHXTReo6 Hq8wiP54YTGuyaVXqqqq7acYwh/eqCTAvys2uDlrh6SItU01TL3iWNd2Va7MOf9SuLPK sOiliaD0yb7R6ylcOW3RLbeWBJMPG4+Z/jKhw= Received: by 10.216.24.31 with SMTP id w31mr6371161wew.81.1320154062626; Tue, 01 Nov 2011 06:27:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gumby.homeunix.com (87-194-105-247.bethere.co.uk. [87.194.105.247]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fi11sm38392769wbb.9.2011.11.01.06.27.40 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 01 Nov 2011 06:27:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 13:27:38 +0000 From: RW To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20111101132738.52555d3e@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <20111101072818.ddcfbd64.freebsd@edvax.de> References: <20111031040545.cc7d874f.freebsd@edvax.de> <557A48F1-B4A0-407D-A8F1-1502990AE31E@gmail.com> <20111031182528.619b9b83.freebsd@edvax.de> <4eafef5a.xn0KmWlZlGCMzFaA%perryh@pluto.rain.com> <20111101072818.ddcfbd64.freebsd@edvax.de> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.10 (GTK+ 2.24.6; amd64-portbld-freebsd8.2) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: The ports are really funcional? 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: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 13:27:44 -0000 On Tue, 1 Nov 2011 07:28:18 +0100 Polytropon wrote: > 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. It depends. If you plan on updating infrequently then sticking with the well tested release tree is sensible. The problem is that there's a lot of pent-up changes that go into the tree immediately after a release. A lot of new user will fall into the trap of doing an initial install from the release tree (usually via packages), and then they pull in months of changes and are faced with a major update. I did that with Gentoo and made a mess of it; and it's the reason I moved on to FreeBSD. > 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: ... It's not an either or. It perfectly sensible to use a RELENG branch and use up-to-date-ports. Unless you actually need a specific MFC'ed update, like a driver, tracking stable is extra risk and hassle for no significant benefit.