Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 16:26:21 -0500 From: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> To: Andrew Hesford <ajh3@chmod.ath.cx> Cc: "Albert D. Cahalan" <acahalan@cs.uml.edu>, questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How Is The FeeBSD OS Like and Different Than Say Redhat or Suse LINUX Message-ID: <15079.16637.60979.644453@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <20010425145221.B74594@cec.wustl.edu> References: <73272839@toto.iv> <15078.61833.932924.665495@guru.mired.org> <20010425145221.B74594@cec.wustl.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Andrew Hesford <ajh3@chmod.ath.cx> types: > On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 10:47:21AM -0500, Mike Meyer wrote: > > Albert D. Cahalan <acahalan@cs.uml.edu> types: > > FreeBSD packages are different because the only group distributing > > FreeBSD packages is FreeBSD itself. That means packages are generally > > available from FreeBSD, if not on the CDROM. I've seen a few ports > > floating around, but in that case I store the *port* in my home > > directory, and let the package install in the default location. > > Packages are just FreeBSD ports compiled on somebody else's machine. Not > only the FreeBSD team can distribute them; anybody can make a package by > changing to the appropriate directory in the ports tree, and typing > `make package`. It builds the port, installs it, and also creates a > tarball FreeBSD package. The theory is correct. It just doesn't match current practice. If someone else becomes a major distributor of FreeBSD packages/ports, or the FreeBSD adopts the Open Package system - which would have much the same effect - then practice would match theory, and putting packages in /usr/local would make sense. > This means installing packages is no different than installing ports, > except you likely don't make use of the CPUTYPE flags in make.conf, and > if the compiling host is stored in the code (e.g., XFree86), it won't be > your machine that is reported. Quite right. Which is why the default for LOCALBASE should be somewhere *other* than /usr/local. > I should also redirect you to my earlier post. "Site-specific" (or > "locally installed" if you read the Linux FSSTND) does NOT mean locally > compiled. It simply means the presence of the software depends on the > machine you are at. This is exactly the case with all ports... they are > optional. The only software a FreeBSD system is GUARANTEED to have is > the stuff in /usr/src... because that is the only software the FreeBSD > team works on. Ports are maintained by individuals who have spare time > and desire... they have nothing to do with the base system. I've read it. I understand it. It ignores issues it shouldn't. I've already discussed those on this thread. Nuts - one of them is in the message you replied to. <mike -- Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15079.16637.60979.644453>