On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 10:58:32AM -0700, Preston Garrison wrote: > It also means you have to wait for someone to update the ports tree, > rather then just grabbing and installing the latest yourself.
Sorry, actually, it doesn't. Upgrading a port the FreeBSD way is not at all difficult. You can make the upgrade locally and submit it via send-pr(1) and help everybody out. If the port is easily compilable from the distfile, it is even easier. Just bump the port rev, update the MD5 and size, and double check that the packing list (pkg-plist) is correct. Once the update is in the gnats database, anyone else can use the patch and update their local copy. Unlike the Asterisk documentation, FreeBSD's documentation is pretty thorough. http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/index.html Don't be afraid of the amount of documentation there. For well written software, only the "Quick Porting" and "Upgrading" chapters are really necessary. Still, the documents exist. If you have a slow day you may want to go ahead and read the whole thing. I did it in three days on the 45 minute train ride to and from work. > If a bug pops up it could be days or weeks before its integrated its > fix into ports, if you know how to compile it yourself, as soon as > someone fixes it in asterisk, you get the fix. If you know how to compile it yourself, it doesn't take much extra effort at all to keep your installed packages database coherent such that someone else can take over if you get hit by a bus. Adding a patch file to the port is trivial. The reason it takes so long for the asterisk updates to show up in ports is because so many people have the attitude such as the one you are displaying in the above message. Personally, I'm lazy. I want the package management system to do the hard work for me. It's worth my effort to send-pr(1) for any port that I use which is out of date. Chances are I'll be installing that port on multiple systems or have to do a re-install on the same system. If I submit the update this time, someone else may decide to use the port because it is current and beat me to send-pr(1)'ing the next update. Besides, you get some "fame" from having your name associated with the update when it is committed. :-) > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wed, 4 May 2005 10:44:30 -0700 > > Ports is still better. > > It keeps the system more clean because it has built in uninstall > support, keeps track of version tracking of the software and its > dependencies, and can integrate with portaudit to keep track of > security vulnerabilities. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Preston Garrison > Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 1:55 AM > > Reverse the order of that, but there is really no reason to use ports. > Asterisk itself compiles fine on freebsd with no need for ports. Just > grab stable from the CVS. If you need libpri and zaptel, that needs > to be installed from ports. -- Scott Lambert KC5MLE Unix SysAdmin [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Asterisk-BSD mailing list [email protected] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-bsd
