Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 17th Apr 2009 18:14 UTC, submitted by sonic2000gr
FreeBSD KenSmith announced the immediate availability of FreeBSD 7.2-RC1 in the FreeBSD-stable mailing list. "The first of two planned Release Candidates for the FreeBSD 7.2-RELEASE cycle is now available. Testing of some of the recent work would be particularly appreciated." The release schedule states that the final release is to be expected early May, at which point we'll cover FreeBSD 7.2 in much more detail.
Thread beginning with comment 359302
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: What's new?
by dvzt on Sat 18th Apr 2009 20:21 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: What's new?"
Member since:

This is all nice, but I think that APT is much more powerfull than FreeBSD ports. I for one would welcome BSD with APT for package management ;)

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[5]: What's new?
by g0nad on Sat 18th Apr 2009 22:27 in reply to "RE[4]: What's new?"
g0nad Member since:
RE[5]: What's new?
by sonic2000gr on Sat 18th Apr 2009 23:14 in reply to "RE[4]: What's new?"
sonic2000gr Member since:

I would say APT is the best for binary package management, but FreeBSD ports is unbeatable for source based installs.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: What's new?
by Brandybuck on Sun 19th Apr 2009 00:41 in reply to "RE[4]: What's new?"
Brandybuck Member since:

But APT is for Debian, not FreeBSD. Just because one can replace the kernel with a bunch of hacking does not mean you can use Debian packages on FreeBSD. There is the complete userland to consider. Debian developers develop for Debian, and not FreeBSD.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: What's new?
by Oliver on Sun 19th Apr 2009 06:48 in reply to "RE[4]: What's new?"
Oliver Member since:

Binary packages != ports. And if it comes to sources-based management Debian is a single failure. However if we're talking about management of binary packages, then pacman from ArchLinux is the way to go. Why should an OS like FreeBSD that follows the KISS principle use something like apt? Prone to failure, overloaded with scripts etc.? No you're talking about the past. But then, most people chosing FreeBSD are quiet happy about the ports and the control they get while building the software. And I don't speak about performance, but control of features, patches, quality compared to inconsistencies among binary packages etc.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: What's new?
by sbenitezb on Sun 19th Apr 2009 17:57 in reply to "RE[4]: What's new?"
sbenitezb Member since:

ports are better if you want to compile. For binary releases I would prefer pacman to apt-get, and I'm an old apt-get lover.

Now FreeBSD with pacman would really rock.

Reply Parent Score: 2