Compatability with FreeBSD Ports

Andreas Hauser andy at
Mon Aug 15 12:59:41 PDT 2005

joerg wrote @ Mon, 15 Aug 2005 21:10:19 +0200:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 11:39:59AM -0000, Andreas Hauser wrote:
> > - no portupgrade
> I stated before that I don't agree with this FOR TECHNICAL REASON.
> portupgrade is a hack, it sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. See
> other comments for examples.

But you have no solution. portupgrade works fine here.
It is a mature tool and is up to the task.
While "bmake update" is not and there are a lot of problems with it
("not hoisting standard view because ...", unconditional deinstallation).
Other tools for pkg_src that try the same seem all immature.
If you come up with something better, i'll sure test it.

> > - deinstalls before compiling
> That's the update target, which makes perfect sense to allow a *clean*,
> *reproducable* build. Use pkg_comp if you don't like it.

I don't care. It's not what i want.

> > - less ports
> How much of the (partly very badly maintained) ports are of importance?
> Heck, look at Debian vs. the rest. Simply because Debian has a few
> tousand packages more doesn't make it any more suited for use than e.g.
> SuSE.

I don't even follow your reasoning. But i tell you ports has even more
well maintained ports than pkgsrc. And even then it's easier to work
from a brocken port than from nothing. What's the count 10000 to 2000 ?
And yes there are bad pkgsrc ports.

> > - important ports not compiling
> >   (i hear, no KDE since April, packages have KDE)
> See other reply. Faking FreeBSD is not a solution either, it tends to
> HIDE problems. I don't know about KDE, I'm not there yet.

It's not that diverted yet. But yes one already needs to be careful
with faking, but still we are far more FreeBSD than we are not.
I used UNAME hacks with pkgsrc too, but it still wasn't working
how i expect.
You might notice that i was always pushing for not defining
__FreeBSD__, so you see i am dialectic about this.

> > - stuff like pkg_views is experimental for years
> ROFL. This is bad because ports doesn't offer anything comparable?

Because this is a feature i like, but it's not being pushed and i
expect it to be experimental for a long time. And it doesn't work
as it should.

> > - incompatible make
> Which is bad because most users already have two makes installed? Come
> on, that's stupid.

It's sure stupid.


More information about the Users mailing list