DragonFly kernel List (threaded) for 2004-05
dillon wrote @ Sun, 30 May 2004 09:09:42 -0700 (PDT):
> Lets just call it a 'lively debate'. apt-get may not be perfect (and
> keep in mind that what I am considering is using the framework, not
> using Debian's packages). But apt-get is certainly a whole lot better
> then the FreeBSD ports system.
If you could elaborate on what makes apt-get better than "portupgrade -NPP".
"-PP" makes it use binary packages only which it fetches from
freebsd.org if necessary (like pkg_add -f will too).
But it can do even more, it can also manage all your packages,
building them from source for you, so you really have a system
where everything fits together (not like binary packages
where there might be dependancy conflicts (which of course get ignored)).
apt can't do that adequatly.
You can easily setup a build box that you use to compile you packages
the way you like (with minor patches modifications etc.) and
use them on all you other hosts (mount packages:/usr/ports /usr/ports).
If that is too much control and fine-tuning for you go with portupgrade -NPP.
Therefore ports and the tools around it, can already do what apt-get can
and more, so how can it be you think apt-get being superior?
I currently manage upto 500 computers of different coloure
including Linux (SuSE, Debian, Gentoo), BSD (DragonFly, FreeBSD),
MacOSX, True64 and Solaris and I prefer ports, even use netbsd's
pkgsrc on Linux with success.
On the otherhand ports has room for improvements.
With >10000 it is imho necessary to define core
ports that get more attention, care and quality control.
A category of ports that is distinguished to be reliable
(might call them core ports or core packages).
Just to name on thing but there are as many as
failed approaches to create a revolutionary system,
so it appears to me to be a thing that can only be solved
evolutionary (meaning to extend and improve the existing).