Re: Compatability with FreeBSD Ports

[Erik Wikström <erik-wikstrom@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 2005-08-15 08:03, Andreas Hauser wrote:
> tomaz.borstnar wrote @ Mon, 15 Aug 2005 07:20:30 +0200:
> > Andreas Hauser wrote:
>
> > > Well, currently ports are still better than pkgsrc.
> > Ports have warm feeling for us, because we use them for so long,
> > not because they are generally best there.
>
> Mine is a technical standpoint.
> Yours is a rethorical NOP.

As one who does not see much of a difference between the two I'd like
to hear your argument for ports being better from a technological
standpoint, and if someone has any counter-arguments I'd like to hear
them too.

> > > And the way pkgsrc is being forced upon us, politically instead
> > > of technically, will fail.
>
> > It is a fact of life that FreeBSD wont adopt ports for other
> > projects so this project would always need to play catch-the-ports
> > game like it did in the past. With pkgsrc you have other people
> > supporting this project as well and generally things should only
> > improve with time because of that.
>
> One can use a SCM like svk to help keep a copy of the ports repo in
> sync. Then one can modify the copy as much as one wants.

As I've understood the problem is not to stay synced (we use the FreeBSD
ports sup-file after all) but rather to have to regenerate the override
patches when a port is upgraded. This problem is smaller when using
pkgsrc since the patches can be integrated into pkgsrc, and hopefully
the patches will be created by the one upgrading the package instead of
a DF-developer. Or did I get that wrong?

--
Erik Wikström