Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 08:51:33 +0100 From: n j <nino80@gmail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports vs packages Message-ID: <CALf6cgYm-U17Cm6jZtytD=bi3Nwbbr5rdV1BBHamfm5KaEKmAw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAHieY7RL5wf=Tk7-9KafudTFYbTHtXh9Ap9rDyVCM=5qEFN4ew@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAJxePN%2BWrr6K83RGFGERzJGUXc24i95BemPOgxqAJW_2Lsfjpg@mail.gmail.com> <07e401cccefb$364338b0$a2c9aa10$@fisglobal.com> <CAHieY7RL5wf=Tk7-9KafudTFYbTHtXh9Ap9rDyVCM=5qEFN4ew@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Alejandro Imass <ait@p2ee.org> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Devin Teske <devin.teske@fisglobal.com> wrote: >> Of course, this is explicit to rather serious production environments. Desktop and casual usage ... ports may serve you better if you like to stay up-to-date rather than only upgrading once every 1-2 years. > > We think the opposite. Serious production environments should use > specifically compiled ports for your needs and create packages from > those. In fact we combine this approach with the use of EzJail and > flavours. So I guess it all depends on the needs and what a serious > production environment means for each company or individual. I would tend to agree. For specific use cases, one is usually better off having complete control over the entire build/compile process i.e. using ports. However, for (IMHO) majority of users the default options are usually OK and using packages is highly desired. That is why I really look forward to improvements of (again IMHO) obsolete binary package format (pkg-*) and hope that either pkgng (http://wiki.freebsd.org/pkgng) or new PBI format in PC-BSD (http://wiki.pcbsd.org/index.php/PBI9_Format) will gain more traction in the community. Regards, -- Nino
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CALf6cgYm-U17Cm6jZtytD=bi3Nwbbr5rdV1BBHamfm5KaEKmAw>