Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 11:22:31 -0700 (MST) From: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> To: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> Cc: alexus <alexus@gmail.com>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports vs packages Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1201091120460.30945@wonkity.com> In-Reply-To: <20120109190840.9f4db334.freebsd@edvax.de> References: <CAJxePN%2BWrr6K83RGFGERzJGUXc24i95BemPOgxqAJW_2Lsfjpg@mail.gmail.com> <20120109190840.9f4db334.freebsd@edvax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 9 Jan 2012, Polytropon wrote: > 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" Don't forget that ports build based on installed libraries. Packages have been built on another system and may expect different versions than are present on the target system. A pretty good analogy is custom-tailored versus off-the-rack.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1201091120460.30945>