Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 9 Dec 2017 19:08:28 -0500
From:      Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com>
To:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: looks like I am no longer welcome around here
Message-ID:  <e2fd4718-271d-9d06-a473-f7d8c2971e59@columbus.rr.com>
In-Reply-To: <20171209195258.d4727a94.freebsd@edvax.de>
References:  <CALM2mEkgjZ2XdiRvuT1364zWOZ4XY_6KSAg9dTqREK3cQKjWAw@mail.gmail.com> <20171209135853.a6c104f5.freebsd@edvax.de> <d9656b09-14b5-390b-6c7f-3ae3a4c123da@columbus.rr.com> <CAGBxaXmedH15y9NLTMEQqnTP=BvA_KXnmN6tN5DL7MxJAxN3pA@mail.gmail.com> <BN6PR2001MB173049BDDB7C9C6B5E17366F80310@BN6PR2001MB1730.namprd20.prod.outlook.com> <20171209160730.GA3370@admin.sibptus.transneft.ru> <20171209195258.d4727a94.freebsd@edvax.de>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On 12/9/2017 1:52 PM, Polytropon wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 23:07:30 +0700, Victor Sudakov wrote:
>> Carmel NY wrote:
>>> Just my own opinion; however, I do not consider synth, unlike poudriere, to be bloated.
>> I don't even consider poudriere bloated. It is neat, does not require
>> weird dependencies or GUI libs, stores its configuration in text
>> files, uses the standard ports and jail infrastructure. Why would
>> anyone call it bloated?
> Not exactly bloated, but it could be considered "overhead"
> just to build one or two ports. However, Poudriere is not
> intended as a replacement for portmaster or portmanager,
> that's important to keep in mind. And for the specific
> case I mentioned, local repositories and restricted lists
> are the way to go. If even that's too much, the classic
> "make install" and "pkg lock" will probably be okay.
>
Which is what synth is good for.  I am not going to get into the 
contraversy surrounding synth.




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?e2fd4718-271d-9d06-a473-f7d8c2971e59>