FWIW (on FreeBSD; apologies for semi-off-topic; I won't continue any
further discussion on-list):
If you want more frequent pkg updates, create the file
/usr/local/etc/pkg/repos/FreeBSD.conf with contents:
FreeBSD: {
url: "pkg+https://pkg.FreeBSD.org/${ABI}/latest";
}
This will switch you (with a 'pkg update -f') from "quarterly" to
"latest". See also: https://wiki.freebsd.org/Ports/QuarterlyBranch for
rationale behind each.
I also find ports-mgmt/synth to be fantastic for maintaining a mix of
pre-built (downloaded compiled) and customized (non-standard-option)
packages. This is similar to how MacPorts will download (as permitted)
pre-compiled ports with standard variants, but build locally for
non-standard variants.
- Eric
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 9:55 AM Marius Schamschula
<li...@schamschula.com> wrote:
>
> Andrew,
>
> MacPorts provides pre-built packages for more macOS versions than Homebrew.
>
> However, MacPorts is very careful not to provide packages where the upstream
> license prohibits us from doing so.
>
> Other pre-built packages are not provided if they depend on said packages to
> be build by our buildbots.
>
> Installing on my Mac using MacPorts is much faster than on my servers under
> FreeBSD where everything literally has to be build locally, as pre-built
> packages may be up three months out of date.
>
> On Jan 26, 2021, at 9:40 AM, Andrew Janke <fl...@apjanke.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1/26/21 10:12 AM, Christopher Nielsen wrote:
>
> Ken Cunningham wrote:
>
> homebrew is in shambles.
>
> their long-touted "no-sudo" and "no PATH" advantage from installing into
> /usr/local has been eliminated by Apple as the horrible security threat it
> always was. They have to retool into /opt/homebrew and make 10,000 builds
> respect the build args now.
>
> They stripped out all their universal handling code a few years ago, can't
> put it back, and so can't do the critical universal builds any more. They
> tell everyone universal is wasteful, lipo things manually, and run the x86_64
> homebrew on Apple Silicon.
>
> So MacPorts, which works great from 10.4 PPC to 11.x arm64, is the place to
> be.
>
>
> Personnally, I’ve never actually tried HomeBrew, as I didn’t want anything
> installed into core OS areas. And after choosing MacPorts years ago - 10+ at
> this point? - I’ve always been very happy with the experience. Enough so that
> I’m finally giving back, as a contributor!
>
> One advantage that HomeBrew does have, though, is cachet: There are so many
> times when articles - or even organizations, such as Google - simply
> recommend using HomeBrew… with no mention of MacPorts.
>
> So, my feeling is that we need to up our public relations game. Do we have an
> active social media presence, for example? (Twitter in particular?)
>
> Of note, while I’m not an expert in social media relations, I’d happily
> volunteer to help with it.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> Hi! Long-time user of both Homebrew and MacPorts here; former Homebrew
> maintainer.
>
> It's definitely a PR issue; Homebrew is winning on that front.
>
> IMHO, the other thing is that Homebrew is fun to use and accessible to
> less-technical users. Friendlier command output, low-jargon documentation,
> sense of humor, fun emojis. MacPorts feels like more of a "pro" thing and
> serious sysadmin tool, and its command output can be kind of technical and
> intimidating. I think the Homebrew approach is attractive to a lot of general
> Mac users, especially those approaching a package manager for the first time.
>
> Another big thing is that Homebrew ships binaries for everything, so you can
> do a full Homebrew install of a big toolchain in just a few minutes, where it
> might take hours to compile. MacPorts still builds everything from source,
> right?
>
> Those are the reasons I always recommend Homebrew to new Mac package manager
> users, even though I think both are good tools.
>
> Cheers,
> Andrew
>
>
