Compatability with FreeBSD Ports [debian package tools]

Andreas Hauser andy at
Thu Aug 18 01:06:42 PDT 2005

jfrazer wrote @ Thu, 18 Aug 2005 01:58:59 -0500:
> The reason I'm not running it right now is lack of good binary packages
> and a good package management system.  I don't have time to mess around
> with source builds which may or may not work.  I want an upgrade path 
> that has a good probability of working, and if it is going to fail I don't 
> want to find out about it 20 hours later when I'm not around to figure out 
> what went wrong.

I've not received a complaint from you about the fortunaty packages.

> I've never been a fan of linux, but my vote goes for apt/dpkg, which I've
> had reasonably good success with. Definitely moreso than ports +
> portupgrade (which has hosed my system far too many times).

(I like linux very much, it's just the distros that suck.)
I also think one can improve the binary package handling.
But why you put that as othogonal to ports/pkgsrc is beyond me.
All those ppl "wanting" apt/dpkg have failed to show the way to accomplish it.
All the ports/pkgsrc have no problem with ports/pkgsrc producing whatever
package format you want (dpkg,rpm,plain tar). And why would you not be
happy with that ?

And please describe how we manage to accomplish apt/dpkg otherwise.
(Actually you might just be able to debootstrap and run via Linux
compatibility. Have you tried that?)


More information about the Users mailing list