From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 31 07:59:24 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81055106564A for ; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 07:59:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eirnym@gmail.com) Received: from mail-fx0-f225.google.com (mail-fx0-f225.google.com [209.85.220.225]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0413B8FC08 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 07:59:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fxm25 with SMTP id 25so248590fxm.3 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 00:59:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:in-reply-to:x-mailer :subject:references:message-id:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:date:cc; bh=q80xTdvymrEmc/gX26ILl9ir6PusYOOTIGr1qrfWfpc=; b=gG8TQPFTfUjZ7apklYbZKihMGPrJ22W4bK62Tp6dYY188SezmhumqqRWFzXTBdpdYR CZCbuO7KHEmWuVFJWbrmSgbA5pogZcvdk73lw8oBjXkct8gNAi798bnFMsXcvOeSOrI5 mgDAJQ8scEfXSWYZRzMau8zDrSaih9NbfxQ3A= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:in-reply-to:x-mailer:subject:references:message-id :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:date:cc; b=JK1a3BGTvW0qhku7txaOdFKQkkYi8CEkP+AqzIBkvxJUML06636/NKDVAyYF0p7aJa N73XWcyXprUUdokUnL/b/QRnMtell1/79YC58TFq2GghRDZGxlGwGO2ZaTjbZSCZuOgW Y2bF9FkWa42cApoXGlKKoJ5gD8rE0p/PG8YrA= Received: by 10.102.243.22 with SMTP id q22mr4412669muh.9.1270022362856; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 00:59:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.7] ([77.41.31.122]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 14sm27670045muo.32.2010.03.31.00.59.21 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 31 Mar 2010 00:59:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Arseny Nasokin To: Garrett Cooper In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (7D11) References: <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> Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 7D11) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:59:23 +0400 Cc: Alexey Shuvaev , "freebsd-ports@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: Old ports bugs analyzis X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 07:59:24 -0000 On 31 Mar 2010, at 10:20, Garrett Cooper wrote: > On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 9:36 PM, Arseny Nasokin > wrote: >> On 31 Mar 2010, at 04:14, Garrett Cooper 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)