Dewayne Geraghty <dewaynegerag...@gmail.com> wrote: > flourished my use of "the system". Over time I realised that the ports > maintainer's option choices didn't reflect my needs. Now I have 490 > changes to the ports options and modified 233 ports' Makefiles and files/. > This customisation is based, in priority order: security, features, > performance. So for me the ports system is fantastic, without it, it would > be impossible to maintain the 2400+ ports that I use on our servers. > > > An expectation that only packages should be used by our wider community is > a false assumption for anything other than novice personal use. Changing > the ports infrastructure so that a build requires poudriere is wrong and as > we're seeing divisive. The PR's are also a cause for hesitancy (see ref > below)
Ditto, 100%. I have many non-standard options, and local patches, many of whicha are customised per machine. I love "ports". Nothing against packages, but the ports is what drew me to FreeBSD. If that falls apart, I'll just end up scripting my own installs from source tar files. It would be a HUGE downgrade to FreeBSD
