On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Roger Marquis <marq...@roble.com> wrote: >>> (The Ubuntu /etc/alternatives symlink system and other mechanisms solve >>> this well) > > > That hasn't been my experience but then I'm not a big fan of symlinks > which can't be safely modified outside of the (d)pkg system. As a > general rule you want to avoid such unnecessary layers of abstraction > where possible. > >>> * if the user's port configuration options aren't different from the >>> package defaults, ask the user if they want to use the package instead >>> (with global and per-port knobs to stop asking if the user desires). > > > Can't really see much use for this. Those of us building from source > know when we can install a binary and nobody really wants to be > held-up by another prompt.
That's exactly why I suggested the knobs. I regularly run into circumstances where I want to tweak a config option for one port, but I'd actually prefer that its dependencies be packages ... until I need to tweak something else. So in my pie-in-the-sky world, when an upgrade triggers the need to upgrade a dependency, if the config options haven't changed, then install the package automatically; otherwise, show me the new config options (highlighted!), and ask me if I want to change the defaults. If I do, that dependency becomes managed from ports. If I don't, it stays managed by packages. The knobs would let you make this behavior possible -- or not. It would be nice to be asked at the point of installing the system what kind of software management you want: [X] Install software from binary packages only [ ] Install software from ports only (compiling everything locally) [ ] Prefer packages, prompting me when default options change [ ] Prefer ports, but use packages if the port options are identical Royce _______________________________________________ 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"
