Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 15 Oct 2004 19:14:20 -0400
From:      Parv <parv@pair.com>
To:        Michael Nottebrock <michaelnottebrock@gmx.net>
Cc:        freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: alternative options for ports
Message-ID:  <20041015231420.GB11786@moo.holy.cow>
In-Reply-To: <200410152156.16113.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net>
References:  <michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> <200410151404.i9FE4Jrc006244@peedub.jennejohn.org> <20041015141551.GA80394@falcon.midgard.homeip.net> <200410152156.16113.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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?

Not a primary target?  I would rather install from FreeBSD ports
system than from the software source due to availability of
maintenance tools/options: install, deinstall, options specification
(Not OPTIONS but CONFIGURE_ARGS), local patches, edit Makefile, &
such.


  - Parv

-- 



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041015231420.GB11786>