Are there any advantages of using pkg instead of pkgsrc on FreeBSD?
Instead of having branches by OS version, would having ports LTS branches
independent of the base system be a better solution?
Grzegorz
It looks like you might have misunderstood something I said about pkgsrc.
I use pkg with FreeBSD ports on FreeBSD, but my interest in pkgsrc and
pkgsrc-synth is for NetBSD.
Working with pkgsrc on NetBSD convinces me that they need to import portupgrade
and/or portmaster from FreeBSD, maybe synth will be better?
Pkgsrc is awkward dealing with packages whose names have changes or branched.
Ports LTS branches, is that Long Term Service? I don't really understand that
question.
Tom
First question: Sorry, I used a mental shortcut without explaining. I
imagined that because both pkg and pkgsrc support FreeBSD, the effort of
maintaining both could be combined, and pkgsrc seemed to be superior
since it also supports other OSes. I also assumed that that has been
considered before. So, because pkg hasn't been replaced by pkgsrc, there
must be some advantages of using pkg on FreeBSD as opposed to using
pkgsrc. My question was about these.
LTS indeed is Long Term Support. In short, there is a branch (or
branches) not tied to any specific OS release but can be dependent on a
specific OS release (e.g. 11.0 as minimum) in which application versions
don't change as often as in the current branch. It would mostly
incorporate security fixes. Now, a question if the versions shouldn't
change for the duration of the LTS branch or if small version changes
are allowed is a secondary issue. What I am trying to determine if
having that branch/es would fulfil the requirement of many people on
this list of having a more stable ports tree (where branches by OS
versions was one of the proposed solutions).
Grzegorz
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
