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>