Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:59:23 +0400 From: Arseny Nasokin <eirnym@gmail.com> To: Garrett Cooper <yanefbsd@gmail.com> Cc: Alexey Shuvaev <shuvaev@physik.uni-wuerzburg.de>, "freebsd-ports@freebsd.org" <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Old ports bugs analyzis Message-ID: <B5373308-5485-4008-8E8E-B81CC116E5E4@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <z2r7d6fde3d1003302320q7504c218w80b300dac36bf7af@mail.gmail.com> References: <ac29a5e51003291405x428cea9el889f802fa2312fb0@mail.gmail.com> <20100330191416.GB98488@wep4035.physik.uni-wuerzburg.de> <2F334A43-634E-4AAC-A144-54200FEE7003@gmail.com> <7d6fde3d1003301349t32a98a49uc223a710a1f2ede4@mail.gmail.com> <57C3B32A-21E5-4D66-8311-800F62B54C6C@gmail.com> <7d6fde3d1003301714o1da03b52j8ac6b8122c1bc45d@mail.gmail.com> <066EBF09-FF6E-48C7-A1F9-0BB6B6A1EADC@gmail.com> <z2r7d6fde3d1003302320q7504c218w80b300dac36bf7af@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 31 Mar 2010, at 10:20, Garrett Cooper <yanefbsd@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 9:36 PM, Arseny Nasokin <eirnym@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On 31 Mar 2010, at 04:14, Garrett Cooper <yanefbsd@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Today binary packages are rolled as generic as possible provided the
>>> architecture they're built for and are monolithic, meaning that they
>>> contain the build, lib, patch, and run dependencies required to
>>> build
>>> everything, as they're generated after an in-place install in
>>> ${PREFIX} .
>>>
>>> One of many ideas we were kicking around on #bsdports was to produce
>>> `fat packages' which would be usable in package installation and
>>> ports
>>> building scenarios (similar to the headache that exists in many
>>> Linux
>>> distros with -devel and non-devel packages), but the user could
>>> specify whether or not they wanted the -devel pieces or not (if it
>>> applied) -- so only one set of packages would need to be
>>> distributed.
>>>
>>> We didn't really kick the idea around too much, but it was still a
>>> novelty that should be `nursed' to a proper conclusion as it would
>>> allow folks who roll packages and install on embedded systems /
>>> install bases, or prefer installing via packages, to have small
>>> install bases, and smaller potential binary roll up after the fact.
>>
>> I can't see and discuss in IRC due browser and platform(software
>> part)
>> limitations in nearest future.
>>
>> I don't clearly understand, will be ports system removed? Will
>> there will be
>> sourse and binary packages or will it be Gentoo-style "portages",
>> which will
>> provide installation from binary or source with options?
>
> Gentoo portage is maintainer hell; we have enough fun with ports not
> to get stuck in that mess.
>
>> Almost all packages in my systems has custom settings.
>
> Which is exactly why I advocate using ports for my desktops and
> servers. I just have other vested interests outside of my personal
> machines where binary packages are better suited than installed a
> boatload of packages from source.
>
> Cool thing is though, if people use standard packages, there's a
> greater chance of there not being stability issues with the packages
> themselves right (or at least all of the issues will be known
> upfront)?
>
> Thanks :),
> -Garrett
If we are talk about specialized optimisations or customisations we
should talk about ports system. If we talk about desktop machines,
there binary packages are better in most cases (for example, using
Synaptics frontend)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?B5373308-5485-4008-8E8E-B81CC116E5E4>