Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 18 Oct 2004 18:09:23 +0200
From:      Jose M Rodriguez <josemi@freebsd.jazztel.es>
To:        freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Cc:        Michael Nottebrock <michaelnottebrock@gmx.net>
Subject:   Re: alternative options for ports
Message-ID:  <200410181809.23797.josemi@freebsd.jazztel.es>
In-Reply-To: <200410161318.41789.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net>
References:  <michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> <20041015231420.GB11786@moo.holy.cow> <200410161318.41789.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
El S=E1bado, 16 de Octubre de 2004 13:18, Michael Nottebrock escribi=F3:
> On Saturday 16 October 2004 01:14, Parv wrote:
> > I suppose i had to wade in sooner or later ...
> >
> >
> > in message <200410152156.16113.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net>,
> > wrote Michael Nottebrock thusly...
> >
> > > On Friday 15 October 2004 16:15, Erik Trulsson wrote:
> > > > I almost never use binary packages but build everything from
> > > > source. (I.e. I would probably barely notice if all binary
> > > > packages suddenly disappeared never to return.)
> >
> > Well, i certainly be mightily ticked off (due to lack of *some* of
> > the packages) when i lack the resources to build a humongous port
> > like Open Office.
> >
> > > I realise that there is a fraction of ports users which don't
> > > care about packages at all ...  but they are not the primary
> > > target audience of ports, as I pointed out before.
> >
> > Michael N, do you imply in above quote that FreeBSD ports system's
> > main purpose is to provide packages?
>
> No, it's _one_ main purpose. Unlike portage or certain big rpm-based
> Linux distributions, freebsd ports does not lean towards either
> source or binary. This implies however both the package and 'the cd
> portdir; make; make install' of installing a port need to be taken
> into consideration when creating and maintaining a port. Packages are
> NOT a second class byproduct of ports which are nice when they are
> nice and if they're not, it doesn't matter anyway. If the package of
> a certain port sucks, the port sucks, it's as simple as that.

I think this need some comments.  There're binary oriented ports (well,=20
better package) systems.  But not source oriented package system.

You can find binary oriented package systems like openpkg (and, in=20
general, rpm systems)  that work 'directly from sources'.

To explain this, openpkg guides teach you to use srpm (source rpm), not=20
rpm (binary).

What really makes a ports/package system 'binary' oriented is that there=20
is a strict model of the final package.  There isn't options on a=20
binary oriented package system.

On OpenBSD, flavors register near but different binary packages.  But=20
none of these have options.  Only the main flavour.

IMHO,  the most interesting feature of OpenBSD ports and rpm that maybe=20
imported are 'build subproducts'.

That is, be able to generates several packages form just one port=20
build/install.

But even this is by no mean a trivial task.

=2D-
  josemi



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200410181809.23797.josemi>