On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:21:01 -0700 (PDT)
Kurt Abahar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Side note: I'm asking because I would definitely be
> willing to contribute since this would make using
> ports and packages together much easier.
I think the issue is one of building tens of thousands of applications and
ensuring they are valid. the process exists already in the ports build farm
(not sure what it is really called), but as you can see it lags behind
individual ports updates.
Anyway, as Chuck said , you can't always use a binary pkg as they may not suit
your needs.
> I also think
> that such a configuration would be a better default
> for portsnap.
Portsnap's functionaty is to update the ports tree, not the binary packages. I
am not sure you'd want to have a 'pkgsnap' in all your machines.. that would
effectively mean you are providing a mirror for all built packages...
B
_________________________
{Beto|Norberto|Numard} Meijome
"The freethinking of one age is the common sense of the next."
Matthew Arnold
I speak for myself, not my employer. Contents may be hot. Slippery when wet.
Reading disclaimers makes you go blind. Writing them is worse. You have been
Warned.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
