Re: The ports are really funcional?

On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 06:08:42 -0700, perryh@pluto.rain.com wrote:
> My experience is exactly the opposite.  The biggest problem I've
> had with ports came from trying to follow the recommended approach
> of updating the tree after installing, before trying to build
> anything.

This is a _conditional_ suggestion. For those who follow
a -STABLE branch, using a continuously updated ports tree,
in combination with updating the OS and the installed
applications, might sound more interesting than the
opposite approach: Installing and _using_ a -RELEASE
(and often only adding the security updates) and
working with the "frozen" ports tree of that particular
release.

Note the difference of -RELEASE and -STABLE - you'll
find similarities in handling the ports tree.

There is no clear definition of "use _this_ on a server,
use _that_ on a desktop"; individual updating and using
habits are important here.

> In retrospect, I'm not at all sure why anyone would be surprised
> at this finding -- or why "update it first" would be recommended.
> The ports tree is known to be buildable and self-consistent when
> packages are built for a release, and that version of the tree
> is distributed with the release. 

Correct. Especially for offline operations, this is an
approach often recommended.

> If something won't build on a
> freshly-installed -RELEASE, but the build cluster _was_ able to
> build the package, there pretty much has to be something wrong with
> the local installation. 

And in that case, exchanging a non-compiling port (for
whatever reason) with a binary package from the RELEASE
set of archives is a possible way to solve the problem.

-- 
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-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"