Package download statistics

Pierre Abbat phma at
Sun Jun 2 12:53:55 PDT 2013

On Sunday, June 02, 2013 14:32:44 John Marino wrote:
> The bigger question, of course, is *why* pkgsrc users are likely to
> build from source?  Could it be that they had lots of issues with that
> in the past?  Who wouldn't want something fast and quick if it were
> trustworthy?  The "indication" alone is telling.

Yes. IIRR the kde4 metapackage and some big chunks of KDE are missing from the 
current repo in 64-bit, but available in 32-bit. I think it was a license not 
allowed on the package building box. In some past quarters, the 32-bit 
packages (I didn't have a 64-bit machine) weren't built at all.

On Sunday, June 02, 2013 11:42:54 Justin Sherrill wrote:
> I'm the fool that was building the pkgsrc binaries, and _I_ was
> recommending that people use pkg-rolling_replace - it led to the least
> amount of surprise for people.  We have never had a good,
> always-up-to-date collection of binaries for pkgsrc, and there's a
> number of reasons: the person building them (me) wasn't the person
> fixing them, the person fixing them would burn out from the work, the
> build cycle took weeks when it worked, the build cycle would take even
> longer when it didn't work, pkgsrc traditionally was a from-source
> system, I am an idiot, etc.

pkg-rolling_replace requires several restarts. It's better to build all the 
binary packages on an empty system, then use pkgin to replace them.

li ze te'a ci vu'u ci bi'e te'a mu du
li ci su'i ze te'a mu bi'e vu'u ci

More information about the Users mailing list