Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!simtel!lll-winken.llnl.gov!uwm.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!news.ksu.ksu.edu!hptemp1.cc.umr.edu!serges From: serges@rocket.cc.umr.edu (serges ) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Ports and Packages Date: 3 Nov 1995 03:52:52 GMT Organization: UMR Missouri's Technological University Lines: 31 Message-ID: <47c3mk$f8n@hptemp1.cc.umr.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.cc.umr.edu X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Okay, Im sure this must have been hashed atleast once before here but I wasnt present, so here goes... Why is there *SO* much support for maintaining a Ports archive and nearly zilch support for the Packages archive? Specifically, why isnt there atleast one package for every port made? The lack of this simply confounds me every time I read a message from/to the ports list. Is it a concern of sapce? ie, theres just not enough space on cdrom to hold a complete archive of packages. This is the *only* reason that I can think of to justify there not being a complete package archive. I hope the argument isnt that a user should bulit from source every application he/she runs. Especially, given that FreeBSD is supposed to be more 'application' oriented, as opposed to say, Netbsd. The argument that many ports require certain 'localisations', preventing a reasonable package from being built - doesnt float one bit. EVERY source build requires 'certain localisations', and in most cases (nearly all actually) a sane default can be found. And if not, then a trip to the ports archive can be made - provided you are fortunate enough to have IP access to the Net... Im not trying to be difficult or incitefull, I just dont understand the reasoning here. Thx, Doug. serges@umr.edu --