Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2017 19:52:58 +0100 From: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> To: Victor Sudakov <vas@mpeks.tomsk.su> Cc: FreeBSD <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: looks like I am no longer welcome around here Message-ID: <20171209195258.d4727a94.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <20171209160730.GA3370@admin.sibptus.transneft.ru> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. Except for the name, I don't dislike anything specific about Poudriere. ;-) -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20171209195258.d4727a94.freebsd>