On 10-01-2012, Tue [08:51:33], n j wrote: > On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Alejandro Imass <a...@p2ee.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Devin Teske <devin.te...@fisglobal.com> > > 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"
