Re: ports vs packages
Alejandro Imass writes: Hi, > IMO it's stupid as well and I second Dick's opinion. You're at least two, great. > The module doesn't hurt anyone, and reduces confusion. I think that > PHP is still more heavily deployed on mod_php than on anything else. > The Apache module should be built by default unless there is a really > strong argument as to why it shouldn't. And then someone will pop here telling that he doesn't need mod_php and doesn't understand why it's packaged by default and that his own configuration should be the default instead... Éric Masson -- Ce personnage doit probablement avoir des qualités cachées (bien cachées) pour ne pas avoir été rejeté par ces paires. Ou bien ça s'apelle l'esprit de corps. -+- FrF in : GNU - Il a les couilles chevillées au corps -+- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports vs packages
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 7:12 AM, Dick Hoogendijk wrote: >> Op 10-1-2012 12:36, Eric Masson schreef: >> >>> Dick Hoogendijk writes: >>> >>> Hi, >>> As I write in another reply: that's true and totally stupid imo. >>> >>> *You* think it's stupid. >> >> Yes, as I wrote: "stupid imo" >> But thanks again for your reply. You may be right but I still feel it's >> better to *have* the pache module and disable it than to *have to* use >> ports >> just to get it. >> > > IMO it's stupid as well and I second Dick's opinion. The module > doesn't hurt anyone, and reduces confusion. I think that PHP is still > more heavily deployed on mod_php than on anything else. The Apache > module should be built by default unless there is a really strong > argument as to why it shouldn't. > > -- > Alejandro Imass When I do pkg_add -r php I'm supposed to install apache as a dependency to that package ? Then people will ask why apache and all its glory is installed and we'll be back to this same argument but in reverse. ]Peter[ All my stuff runs on 'cheap' hardware, so I build most items, removing crud I don't need and will never use. [portmaster, list all the dependencies, then do 'pkg_add' on the ones I made no change in 'make-config']. Lean mean serving machine vs. everything and the kitchen sink all purpose serving machine. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports vs packages
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 7:12 AM, Dick Hoogendijk wrote: > Op 10-1-2012 12:36, Eric Masson schreef: > >> Dick Hoogendijk writes: >> >> Hi, >> >>> As I write in another reply: that's true and totally stupid imo. >> >> *You* think it's stupid. > > Yes, as I wrote: "stupid imo" > But thanks again for your reply. You may be right but I still feel it's > better to *have* the pache module and disable it than to *have to* use ports > just to get it. > IMO it's stupid as well and I second Dick's opinion. The module doesn't hurt anyone, and reduces confusion. I think that PHP is still more heavily deployed on mod_php than on anything else. The Apache module should be built by default unless there is a really strong argument as to why it shouldn't. -- Alejandro Imass ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports vs packages
Op 10-1-2012 12:36, Eric Masson schreef: Dick Hoogendijk writes: Hi, As I write in another reply: that's true and totally stupid imo. *You* think it's stupid. Yes, as I wrote: "stupid imo" But thanks again for your reply. You may be right but I still feel it's better to *have* the pache module and disable it than to *have to* use ports just to get it. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports vs packages
Dick Hoogendijk writes: Hi, > As I write in another reply: that's true and totally stupid imo. *You* think it's stupid. There's not one true way to serve php pages, more and more platforms use a lightweight httpd daemon like nginx and php-fpm for example. If you manage many servers, you can build custom packages with options you need and then deploy. If you tinker with your home server, using the ports isn't that a problem... Éric Masson -- je comprend pas ce a quoi sert ce site ou cette boite a lettre.J'y voit plein de messages et autres anneries alors si tu pouvais m'aider et me repondre pour m'expliquer a qui et a quoi servent toutes ses phrases -+- DD in http://www.le-gnu.net : Allo Huston, nous avons un neuneu. -+- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports vs packages
On 10-01-2012, Tue [10:16:06], Matthew Seaman wrote: > On 10/01/2012 09:23, Dmitry Sarkisov wrote: > > Would be nice to know if there any plans on switching to pkgng or any other > > pkg management > > system in a future. > > pkgng is under active development with the stated aim of replacing the > current packaging system. If you want to get involved, check out the > #pkgng channel on irc.freenode.net > > It's still too early in the pkgng development cycle for a decision to > have been made about if and when it becomes the new standard packaging > system. Given it is such a major infrastructure change the switch over > will have to be carefully managed and I'd expect there to be a lot of > activity over on freebsd-ports@ while it is all in beta. > > Cheers, > > Matthew > Thanks for the info, Matthew! It's really good to see some moving forward once in a while. -- Best wishes, Dmitry Sarkisov <--\ <---+-- <--/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports vs packages
Op 9-1-2012 23:00, alexus schreef: Thank you so much for this wonderful feedback! One of the things I'm seeing is that unfortunately packages are somewhat limited vs ports... For example: I'm trying to get Apache httpd + PHP to work, after pkg_add -r php5, php5 doesn't have libphp5.so that links Apache and PHP together... so unless I'm doing something entirely wrong I basically must use ports and nothing else to get the functionality i need... As I write in another reply: that's true and totally stupid imo. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports vs packages
On 10/01/2012 09:23, Dmitry Sarkisov wrote: > Would be nice to know if there any plans on switching to pkgng or any other > pkg management > system in a future. pkgng is under active development with the stated aim of replacing the current packaging system. If you want to get involved, check out the #pkgng channel on irc.freenode.net It's still too early in the pkgng development cycle for a decision to have been made about if and when it becomes the new standard packaging system. Given it is such a major infrastructure change the switch over will have to be carefully managed and I'd expect there to be a lot of activity over on freebsd-ports@ while it is all in beta. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate JID: matt...@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: ports vs packages
On 10-01-2012, Tue [08:51:33], n j wrote: > On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Alejandro Imass wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Devin Teske > > wrote: > >> Of course, this is explicit to rather serious production environments. > >> Desktop and casual usage ... ports may serve you better if you like to > >> stay up-to-date rather than only upgrading once every 1-2 years. > > > > We think the opposite. Serious production environments should use > > specifically compiled ports for your needs and create packages from > > those. In fact we combine this approach with the use of EzJail and > > flavours. So I guess it all depends on the needs and what a serious > > production environment means for each company or individual. > > I would tend to agree. For specific use cases, one is usually better > off having complete control over the entire build/compile process i.e. > using ports. > > However, for (IMHO) majority of users the default options are usually > OK and using packages is highly desired. That is why I really look > forward to improvements of (again IMHO) obsolete binary package format > (pkg-*) and hope that either pkgng (http://wiki.freebsd.org/pkgng) or > new PBI format in PC-BSD (http://wiki.pcbsd.org/index.php/PBI9_Format) > will gain more traction in the community. > > Regards, > -- > Nino Would be nice to know if there any plans on switching to pkgng or any other pkg management system in a future. -- Dmitry Sarkisov <--\ <---+-- <--/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports vs packages
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Alejandro Imass wrote: > On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Devin Teske wrote: >> Of course, this is explicit to rather serious production environments. >> Desktop and casual usage ... ports may serve you better if you like to stay >> up-to-date rather than only upgrading once every 1-2 years. > > We think the opposite. Serious production environments should use > specifically compiled ports for your needs and create packages from > those. In fact we combine this approach with the use of EzJail and > flavours. So I guess it all depends on the needs and what a serious > production environment means for each company or individual. I would tend to agree. For specific use cases, one is usually better off having complete control over the entire build/compile process i.e. using ports. However, for (IMHO) majority of users the default options are usually OK and using packages is highly desired. That is why I really look forward to improvements of (again IMHO) obsolete binary package format (pkg-*) and hope that either pkgng (http://wiki.freebsd.org/pkgng) or new PBI format in PC-BSD (http://wiki.pcbsd.org/index.php/PBI9_Format) will gain more traction in the community. Regards, -- Nino ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports vs packages
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 5:00 PM, alexus wrote: > Thank you so much for this wonderful feedback! > > One of the things I'm seeing is that unfortunately packages are > somewhat limited vs ports... > > For example: > > I'm trying to get Apache httpd + PHP to work, after pkg_add -r php5, > php5 doesn't have libphp5.so that links Apache and PHP together... so > unless I'm doing something entirely wrong I basically must use ports > and nothing else to get the functionality i need... > The port in lang/php52 has a build apache module option. Seems weird to me that the module is not built with the binary distro of the php52 package. It also seems weird that in the port, the apache module option is not selected by default. Maybe it's because the PHP crowd seems to have a grudge against the apache module and the maintainer follows that sentiment? What good is php52 if not to run with Apache :-) Yeah I don't like php that much, but IMHO the apache module should be selected by default if it's detected that Apache is installed on the system. Maybe you should write the port maintainer and get his take on the matter. -- Alejandro Imass > http://alexus.org/ > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports vs packages
Thank you so much for this wonderful feedback! One of the things I'm seeing is that unfortunately packages are somewhat limited vs ports... For example: I'm trying to get Apache httpd + PHP to work, after pkg_add -r php5, php5 doesn't have libphp5.so that links Apache and PHP together... so unless I'm doing something entirely wrong I basically must use ports and nothing else to get the functionality i need... -- http://alexus.org/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
RE: ports vs packages
> -Original Message- > From: aim...@yabarana.com [mailto:aim...@yabarana.com] On Behalf Of > Alejandro Imass > Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 11:37 AM > To: Devin Teske > Cc: alexus; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: ports vs packages > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Devin Teske > wrote: > >> -Original Message- > >> From: owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd- > > [...] > > > Of course, this is explicit to rather serious production environments. Desktop > and casual usage ... ports may serve you better if you like to stay up-to-date > rather than only upgrading once every 1-2 years. > > We think the opposite. Serious production environments should use specifically > compiled ports for your needs and create packages from those. In fact we > combine this approach with the use of EzJail and flavours. So I guess it all depends > on the needs and what a serious production environment means for each > company or individual. Thanks for the nod ... indeed it varies from each company and individual. Another thing to watch out for with ports is architecture-dependent optimizations. Usually it's pretty safe so-long-as you don't heavily pollute your make.conf or heavily dip-into the various config options for each port. In our case, the concern is that if you optimize and then deliver to older hardware, something goes awry. You can often mitigate such things by using the "lowest common denominator" amongst your clients hardware pool, and/or mandating a minimum-set of base requirements that you target. Stating these requirements explicitly to your customer base in a prominent section of the release-notes for each release should assuage such problems, but it's also very important to get that list (especially if there are big changes in the requirements from one release to the next) to your customers in a timely manner *before* the actual release, so that they can inventory their hardware pool (determining the "damage" if you will and perhaps giving them time to perform a "tech refresh" to get up to speed with the [potentially] new requirements). Above all else, it's also paramount that (if you use ports heavily to compile binary packages from which machines are subsequently built) should you ever change out your compilation hardware, that you notify your customers of the specs of your new build machine (considering that your build machine should usually be representative of the lowest-common-denominator within the scope of production hardware still in-use). -- Devin _ The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports vs packages
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Devin Teske wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd- [...] > Of course, this is explicit to rather serious production environments. > Desktop and casual usage ... ports may serve you better if you like to stay > up-to-date rather than only upgrading once every 1-2 years. We think the opposite. Serious production environments should use specifically compiled ports for your needs and create packages from those. In fact we combine this approach with the use of EzJail and flavours. So I guess it all depends on the needs and what a serious production environment means for each company or individual. -- Alejandro Imass ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports vs packages
On 1/9/12 6:48 PM, claudiu vasadi wrote: > On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 6:17 PM, alexus wrote: > >> Ports vs Packages? >> >> /usr/ports vs pkg_* >> >> pros/cons >> >> -- >> http://alexus.org/ >> ___ >> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to " >> freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" >> > > > you google-ing vs you google-ing > > pro/cons ? > Now posting in a legendary thread. Also, http://fail.my.gd/legendary_thread.jpg Although, I have to say your reply is a bit blunt ;) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports vs packages
On Mon, 9 Jan 2012, Polytropon wrote: On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 12:17:37 -0500, alexus wrote: Ports vs Packages? /usr/ports vs pkg_* pros/cons In short: ports: pro: most current, if properly updated build from source (security!) apply optimization (speed!) apply compile-time options (functionality!) highly configurable easy updating of installed stuff cons: requires time requires disk space requires CPU packages: pro: fast installation less typing works good on low resource systems cons: not "bleeding edge" not all ports available as packages primarily means of "first time installation" Don't forget that ports build based on installed libraries. Packages have been built on another system and may expect different versions than are present on the target system. A pretty good analogy is custom-tailored versus off-the-rack. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports vs packages
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 6:17 PM, alexus wrote: > Ports vs Packages? > > /usr/ports vs pkg_* > > pros/cons > > -- > http://alexus.org/ > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to " > freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" > you google-ing vs you google-ing pro/cons ? -- Best regards, Claudiu Vasadi ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
RE: ports vs packages
> -Original Message- > From: owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd- > questi...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of alexus > Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 9:18 AM > To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Subject: ports vs packages > > Ports vs Packages? > > /usr/ports vs pkg_* > > pros/cons > For a very serious production environment, here's our recipe... 1. Always and forever packages first 2. If you can't find it in the pre-compiled packages for your release... then use ports 3. But if the port wants too many dependencies, ... we build our own package. Your mileage may vary, but the reason we've adopted this scheme is because precompiled binary packages already have their dependencies set in stone. Opposed to ports, if you pull two related packages from the ports-tree at two different times (months apart), then the dependencies may have "floated" away from your release and therefore, you may end up installing 30+ package dependencies when it may not absolutely be necessary to do so. We've been doing things this way since FreeBSD 2.2.2-RELEASE (migrated from 2.2.2 to 4.4, then 4.8, then 4.11, then stuck on 4.11 for some years, and now 8.1). Of course, this is explicit to rather serious production environments. Desktop and casual usage ... ports may serve you better if you like to stay up-to-date rather than only upgrading once every 1-2 years. -- Devin _ The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports vs packages
On Mon, January 9, 2012 12:17 pm, alexus wrote: > Ports vs Packages? > > /usr/ports vs pkg_* > > pros/cons Ports: Compiled to *your* specs, for *your* machine. Faster/smaller downloads. More options available for customization. Can apply your own patches. Packages: Faster installs. Known configurations, that have been tested by others. Less resources needed on your machine. (Don't need to spend time compiling.) They can work together, in many situations. (Where some apps are installed one way, and some are installed the other.) Daniel T. Staal --- This email copyright the author. Unless otherwise noted, you are expressly allowed to retransmit, quote, or otherwise use the contents for non-commercial purposes. This copyright will expire 5 years after the author's death, or in 30 years, whichever is longer, unless such a period is in excess of local copyright law. --- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports vs packages
On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 13:06:27 -0500, Alejandro Imass wrote: > Use pre-built binary packages to install very large > stuff like Gnome, Open Office, etc. Not an option if your required language settings or the inclusion or exclusion of desktop bindings (KDE, Gnome, CUPS) don't match the default options from wich the package has been built. Also may apply to X.org (HAL and DBUS dependencies, if they're not desired or basically useless). Otherwise, no objections. :-) -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports vs packages
On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 12:17:37 -0500, alexus wrote: > Ports vs Packages? > > /usr/ports vs pkg_* > > pros/cons In short: ports: pro: most current, if properly updated build from source (security!) apply optimization (speed!) apply compile-time options (functionality!) highly configurable easy updating of installed stuff cons: requires time requires disk space requires CPU packages: pro: fast installation less typing works good on low resource systems cons: not "bleeding edge" not all ports available as packages primarily means of "first time installation" The list could go on for hours. Consensus: Use a port management tool (such as portmaster or even portupgrade) if you don't want to deal with "bare ports". Furthermore, consult the mailing list archives for more elaborate answers and discussions. :-) -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports vs packages
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 12:17 PM, alexus wrote: > Ports vs Packages? > > /usr/ports vs pkg_* > > pros/cons The beauty of FBSD: they ultimately update the same DB, heck even Perl modules installed via the FBSD CPAN shell get updated to that same db. My rule of thumb: use ports for everything, compile with your own options, etc. Use pre-built binary packages to install very large stuff like Gnome, Open Office, etc. -- Alejandro Imass ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
ports vs packages
Ports vs Packages? /usr/ports vs pkg_* pros/cons -- http://alexus.org/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Ports vs Packages
Jose Borquez wrote: > Nathan Vidican wrote: > >> Jose Borquez wrote: >> >>> When installing the same software using either the ports or a package >>> do they both install in the same locations? For Example installing >>> Apache from ports on one server and installing Apache from packages >>> on another server would still use the same locations for both? >>> >>> Thank you in advance, >>> Jose >>> ___ >>> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list >>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions >>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to >>> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" >>> >>> >> By default, afaik - yes, but that's the short answer ;) >> > What is the long answer? ... try it for yourself and see?! -- Best regards, Chris The label "new" and/or "improved" means the price went up. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ports vs Packages
Nathan Vidican wrote: Jose Borquez wrote: When installing the same software using either the ports or a package do they both install in the same locations? For Example installing Apache from ports on one server and installing Apache from packages on another server would still use the same locations for both? Thank you in advance, Jose ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" By default, afaik - yes, but that's the short answer ;) What is the long answer? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ports vs Packages
Jose Borquez wrote: When installing the same software using either the ports or a package do they both install in the same locations? For Example installing Apache from ports on one server and installing Apache from packages on another server would still use the same locations for both? Thank you in advance, Jose ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" By default, afaik - yes, but that's the short answer ;) -- Nathan Vidican [EMAIL PROTECTED] Windsor Match Plate & Tool Ltd. http://www.wmptl.com/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ports vs Packages
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 13:17:01 -0800 Jose Borquez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > When installing the same software using either the ports or a > package do they both install in the same locations? For Example > installing Apache from ports on one server and installing Apache from > packages on another server would still use the same locations for > both? yes, afaik ports and packages both use /usr/local as prefix (the "makeworld base" however uses /usr as prefix) -- grtjs, albi gpg-key: lynx -dump http://scii.nl/~albi/gpg.asc | gpg --import ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ports vs Packages
On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 01:17:01PM -0800, Jose Borquez wrote: > When installing the same software using either the ports or a package > do they both install in the same locations? For Example installing > Apache from ports on one server and installing Apache from packages on > another server would still use the same locations for both? The same. A package is just a port built with default options. Kris pgpevKoRm0tKC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Ports vs Packages
When installing the same software using either the ports or a package do they both install in the same locations? For Example installing Apache from ports on one server and installing Apache from packages on another server would still use the same locations for both? Thank you in advance, Jose ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ports vs. Packages
Charles Howse wrote: Packages are nice for the speed you can install them with, but can be much harder to deal with the dependencies unless you use something like portupgrade (which is much more useful after you've got what you want installed and want to keep it all up to date). Well, that begs the question, how about installing what I want from packages and then using portupgrade to keep it up2date? That's the whole point of portupgrade. Keeping it all up to date. The ports system is much, much better than Redhat's update mechanism too. I install all of my ports from source on my PII 333 machine even though I have to wait for them all to compile. The performance increase of binaries compiled for your system is worth the wait IMO. Sometimes if I don't feel like waiting, I'll just let portupgrade fetch the distfiles, then compile everything when I go to bed. Good Luck, Jason ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ports vs. Packages
On Mon, 2003-08-18 at 22:41, Kris Kennaway wrote: > Please wrap your lines at 70 characters so your mail can be easily read. Sorry, my client (Evo 1.4.4) is set to wrap, but for some reason it occasionally decides not to. It's probably some weird GTK bug. -- Adam McLaurin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Ports vs. Packages
On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 07:34:04PM -0400, Adam McLaurin wrote: > On Mon, 2003-08-18 at 19:25, Charles Howse wrote: > > Will doing it that way require all the compiling? > > No, packages are pre-compiled. Note that you'll sometimes have to wait a little > longer to get the updated packages, since the maintainer has to submit a compiled > binary, but doesn't always do so immediately after a port is updated. Please wrap your lines at 70 characters so your mail can be easily read. Actually, package builds are done centrally, they are not submitted by the port maintainer. Full package rebuilds are done more or less continuously, but they're only updated on the FTP site every week or two (depending on architecture, FreeBSD version and other factors like how busy I am :-) Kris pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: Ports vs. Packages
> Packages are nice for the speed you can install them with, > but can be much > harder to deal with the dependencies unless you use something like > portupgrade (which is much more useful after you've got what you want > installed and want to keep it all up to date). Well, that begs the question, how about installing what I want from packages and then using portupgrade to keep it up2date? ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ports vs. Packages
On Monday 18 August 2003 04:25 pm, Charles Howse wrote: > > Neither. I'd recommend installing sysutils/portupgrade and using the > > portinstall option to fetch & install packages (so you always get the > > latest version). Check the -P and -PP options to portinstall. > > > > Note that doing this will require you to have an updated ports tree. > > You'll need to cvsup your ports regularly > > (net/cvsup-without-gui). There > > are many threads on the mailing lists with detailed information on how > > to cvsup your ports tree and rebuild your INDEX. > > Will doing it that way require all the compiling? Not necessarily. If you run portupgrade with "-P" it will attempt to use packages wherever it can find them, and install from ports where it cannot find a package. "-PP" will _only_ use packages, however it will then fail if it cannot find a package and you would then need to fetch the package yourself manually. The way it sounds like you would be using it you'd want to use "-P", but I'd recommend reading the man page for portupgrade. Packages are nice for the speed you can install them with, but can be much harder to deal with the dependencies unless you use something like portupgrade (which is much more useful after you've got what you want installed and want to keep it all up to date). -Mark ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Ports vs. Packages
> > Will doing it that way require all the compiling? > > No, packages are pre-compiled. Note that you'll sometimes > have to wait a little longer to get the updated packages, > since the maintainer has to submit a compiled binary, but > doesn't always do so immediately after a port is updated. Excellent! Thank you! Just what I was looking for. I also found this: http://www.freebsddiary.org/portupgrade.php ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Ports vs. Packages
On Mon, 2003-08-18 at 19:25, Charles Howse wrote: > Will doing it that way require all the compiling? No, packages are pre-compiled. Note that you'll sometimes have to wait a little longer to get the updated packages, since the maintainer has to submit a compiled binary, but doesn't always do so immediately after a port is updated. -- Adam McLaurin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Ports vs. Packages
Charles Howse wrote: I'm confused ( which is not an uncommon occurrence ), let's say I know I don't need to edit the source code of any of the additional software that I plan to install, but I want the latest version. Should I install from ports or sysistall/packages/FTP? I just installed Midnight Commander from ports ( make && make install && make clean ), and with all the dependencies, it took over 30 minutes on my Celeron 300 w/64 MB, vs. less than a minute from sysinstall. Thanks, Charles If you've configured your make.conf, ports will produce a faster piece of software (Since it's otpimised for your machine) while packages install quickly (And work on machines with no compiler installed) Adam ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Ports vs. Packages
> Neither. I'd recommend installing sysutils/portupgrade and using the > portinstall option to fetch & install packages (so you always get the > latest version). Check the -P and -PP options to portinstall. > > Note that doing this will require you to have an updated ports tree. > You'll need to cvsup your ports regularly > (net/cvsup-without-gui). There > are many threads on the mailing lists with detailed information on how > to cvsup your ports tree and rebuild your INDEX. Will doing it that way require all the compiling? ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ports vs. Packages
On Mon, 2003-08-18 at 19:14, Charles Howse wrote: > I'm confused ( which is not an uncommon occurrence ), let's say I know I > don't need to edit the source code of any of the additional software > that I plan to install, but I want the latest version. > > Should I install from ports or sysistall/packages/FTP? > > I just installed Midnight Commander from ports ( make && make install && > make clean ), and with all the dependencies, it took over 30 minutes on > my Celeron 300 w/64 MB, vs. less than a minute from sysinstall. Neither. I'd recommend installing sysutils/portupgrade and using the portinstall option to fetch & install packages (so you always get the latest version). Check the -P and -PP options to portinstall. Note that doing this will require you to have an updated ports tree. You'll need to cvsup your ports regularly (net/cvsup-without-gui). There are many threads on the mailing lists with detailed information on how to cvsup your ports tree and rebuild your INDEX. -- Adam McLaurin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Ports vs. Packages
I'm confused ( which is not an uncommon occurrence ), let's say I know I don't need to edit the source code of any of the additional software that I plan to install, but I want the latest version. Should I install from ports or sysistall/packages/FTP? I just installed Midnight Commander from ports ( make && make install && make clean ), and with all the dependencies, it took over 30 minutes on my Celeron 300 w/64 MB, vs. less than a minute from sysinstall. Thanks, Charles ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
