On Saturday 16 October 2004 01:14, Parv wrote: > I suppose i had to wade in sooner or later ... > > > in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > wrote Michael Nottebrock thusly... > > > On Friday 15 October 2004 16:15, Erik Trulsson wrote: > > > I almost never use binary packages but build everything from > > > source. (I.e. I would probably barely notice if all binary > > > packages suddenly disappeared never to return.) > > Well, i certainly be mightily ticked off (due to lack of *some* of > the packages) when i lack the resources to build a humongous port > like Open Office. > > > I realise that there is a fraction of ports users which don't care > > about packages at all ... but they are not the primary target > > audience of ports, as I pointed out before. > > Michael N, do you imply in above quote that FreeBSD ports system's > main purpose is to provide packages?
No, it's _one_ main purpose. Unlike portage or certain big rpm-based Linux distributions, freebsd ports does not lean towards either source or binary. This implies however both the package and 'the cd portdir; make; make install' of installing a port need to be taken into consideration when creating and maintaining a port. Packages are NOT a second class byproduct of ports which are nice when they are nice and if they're not, it doesn't matter anyway. If the package of a certain port sucks, the port sucks, it's as simple as that. -- ,_, | Michael Nottebrock | [EMAIL PROTECTED] (/^ ^\) | FreeBSD - The Power to Serve | http://www.freebsd.org \u/ | K Desktop Environment on FreeBSD | http://freebsd.kde.org
pgpcNESd50wGl.pgp
Description: PGP signature
