To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
For me it comes down to liking source compiled packages better. With faster machines now a days it is not that cumbersome. I did compile gnome 2.8 on a 450 mhz p3 with 128 megs of ram last year... took 2 days in total for everything. Did it again this year on a dual amd64s with 5 gigs of ram and it was < 2 hours.
FreeBSD ports miss information about versions (package abc requires def >=2.5). So, either you recompile all dependencies,..
No, not really - there are some occasions when you have to update related ports, but these are the exceptions, always notified in /usr/ports/UPDATING. So, for instance, there is an update to mysql. You compiled amarok with mysql support - which means, amarok now depends on mysql. When you portupgrade -a - which updates mysql to the newest version - you don't have to recompile amarok. Also, if you take a look at the Makefiles, most ports depend on the presence of specific libraries, not package version. Everything is handled automatically by portugprade/install tools - you don't have to skip anything, or have additional recompiles: most of the times (there are exceptions as I noted) when you update, you only update those packs that have newer version available in the ports tree. I might have misunderstood your post however, so please clarify if I missed your point.
Ports is a single version - supporting at least 4 branches of FreeBSD (4.x, 5.x, 6.x, 7-CURRENT) - I think that this is not a problem, in fact, it is a small miracle I believe
Ports are also very stable compared to ebuilds (except stable branch, which is slightly more outdated than ports). Yes, there are always broken ports (but currently, www.freshports.org doesn't differenciate between broken on $arch or $version - but they are working on it, so half of the ports marked as broken will probably work for you, because they might be broken on Fbsd 4.x, or on the Alpha, or any combinations).
FreeBSD ports miss information about versions (package abc requires def >=2.5). So, either you recompile all dependencies,.FreeBSD ports miss information about versions (package abc requires def >=2.5). So, either you recompile all dependencies,,,
No, not really - there are some occasions when you have to update related ports, but these are the exceptions, always notified in /usr/ports/UPDATING.
It's true I hadn't picked up the habit of reading this file. Thanks for the tip. If I remember correctly though "portinstall" (not portupgrade) always insisted on upgrading dependencies - so you install "xtinyapp" and suddenly you have to upgrade x.org to its latest version.
I'll try *BSD again though, this time using binaries and all the shiny tools (portsnap, portaudit). Maybe this time ports will work for me, because I was otherwise very pleased with it.





Member since:
2006-02-10
I spent two months with gentoo and came back screaming to ports, which gives me the same lean system with 1/10 of the configuration headache. And you can't have "more" recompiling - when you upgrade, you upgrade the packages you have installed.
FreeBSD ports miss information about versions (package abc requires def >=2.5). So, either you recompile all dependencies, even if you didn't intend to, and be on the safe side or try your luck and skip it. Also, I think there isn't a "stable" branch for ports, only "current" exists - that would be equivalent to running ~arch in Gentoo.
As for .pbi, it's intention is probably to install a few desktop apps e.g. firefox, but the rest of the system e.g. Gnome is still using tradional packages? (or I am wrong). That doesn't look good to me.
Re: CaptainFlint. portupgrade helps, but can't solve the above problems. As I said I haven't used binaries much though.
Edited 2006-02-15 13:52