From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 31 08:39:36 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 EFFDB106564A for ; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:39:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yanefbsd@gmail.com) Received: from mail-qy0-f181.google.com (mail-qy0-f181.google.com [209.85.221.181]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D0598FC1F for ; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:39:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: by qyk11 with SMTP id 11so430774qyk.13 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 01:39:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:received:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=l+Nls5lOuttro8ic2wkAnzZ9Drg5D7YY1TYxBCdFPV4=; b=nzAcyNOzJ2EM+dH+jtJ8qDcL5vxmvRKtSUsUZJDACoRFiSExH9UL2DML4Mpg0WV85y PonAtI1QETV6vvTZ1iDtCIO9YkptwiOI1eUIHZnsPYQ3XATRJ5vEx7B2ETKKQwuEv5c5 FMdLupQ/F53UK3nU+nSoefDFNMvIkcrH7rNQg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=Ph1LvWZP+f1ZPIrZD1LyMge6riqNaaeKrSmZhIi2KBlelv3lssO/I7R687Moa2YLLd rJ9X4eJZBRDcJrxdgppsJHCHGPONmikXsJLsXGrk4icTGZgqTnNEEMe4VJugAQSaST0w MzncNiK17n2s03Zr6bgUHyjqMX3QZ+64ZSLqQ= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.33.72 with HTTP; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 01:39:35 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: 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> Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 01:39:35 -0700 Received: by 10.229.213.133 with SMTP id gw5mr876449qcb.13.1270024775693; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 01:39:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: From: Garrett Cooper To: Arseny Nasokin Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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 08:39:37 -0000 On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 12:59 AM, Arseny Nasokin wrote: > 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) YMMV, but most of the time binary packages are built with the idea in mind that it will meet the majority of the end-users' needs instead of a specific case (unless there is a good reason for there being variance, in that case ports are split, i.e. vim, vim-lite, etc). There is a small amount of optimization that can be gained by using proper CFLAGS as well with more modern hardware (let's face it.. the default flags that binary packages are built with are meant to run on generic old-school IBM clones all the way up to the most bleeding edge AMD and Intel processors for instance) -- so if you use the appropriate CPUTYPE and CFLAGS you can gain performance wise, because you're tailoring the programs you compile to meet your system's capabilities. You just have to be careful because ricing is something that Gentoo users got themselves in trouble with back around 2003 ~ 2004, and then I think that most people learned that they weren't really gaining much in performance and were losing in stability, so they stopped ricing their compiles. Cheers, -Garrett