Gary Kline schrieb:
The final form of actual binaries depend on a lot of things, e.g. which version of dependency you compiled with, which CFLAGS you have used, what options the port you built it. Some of these applies to packages as well, that's why I prefer ports over packages at all. E.g. let's see lang/php5. It does not have the apache module enabled by default. If it were, then the problem comes up with Apache versions. IIRC, 2.2 is the default now, but what if you use 2.0? How would you install php for your apache version from package? The situtation has been already pretty complicated with packages if you have higher needs for fine tuning, but you can use them if you don't have special needs. Binary diffs would be so complicated that I think this way we could really not follow.Regarding most (or many) of the port changes--say, upgrading foo-2.1.9_5 to foo-2.1.9_6, if the upgrade could be done by downloading a binary diff file, could the resulting/usr/local/bin/foo-2.1.9_6 be achieved by downloading a relatively small binary patch? Seems to me that smaller scaleupgrades could be done this way in preference to re-compiling ports or downloading entire pacakes. --Same would go for any dependencies.Why is this a bad idea! gary
If you need simplicity at all, use portupgrade with packages. It has an option (don't remember which one) you can use to make it fetch packages instead of building from source. Nowadays, this network traffic should not be a real problem, I think.
Regards, Gabor _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
