On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 09:19:15AM -0500, Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: > 1. What is more important to your personal use of FreeBSD (the ports > system, the underlaying OS, some other aspect)?
Yes. (i.e., mu) > 2. How frequently do you interact with the ports systems and what is > the most common interaction you have with it? Slightly more than weekly. Updating. > 3. What is the single best aspect of the current system? Most of what I want to use is in there, and builds and installs without fault or clashes. > 4. What is the single worst aspect of the current system? A toss-up between - inability to cross-build (not entirely fixable by ports, I know, but I'm sure that *some* ports would be buildable with appropriate cross-tools, and there's some chance that that set would include the pieces I'm interested in...) and - library dependencies don't extend to the base system. I've just spent a week un-breaking my GNOME environment after upgrading to 7-STABLE from 6-STABLE (which worked, as did all my existing ports) and then portupgrading (which broke nearly everything, because of the upgraded system libc.so, libz.so and libpthread.so->libthr.so, resulting in applications that depended on both old and new base libraries). A corollary of this is that portupgrade -af is not restartable if something breaks or requires manual intervention, which results in quadratic rebuild time, unless the whole process is managed manually. > 5. If you where a new FreeBSD user how would your answers above > change? If you where brand new to UNIX how whould they change? No idea. I haven't been a new FreeBSD user for a long time. If I were a new UNIX user, I might hope that things would work as they do in MacOS-X, and probably would prefer to use a GUI interface to pre-built packages, rather than the ports system at all. [That being the case, it's *most* important that the ports system be useful for the package-building farm.] > 6. Assuming that there was no additional work on your behalf would you > use a new system if it corrected your answer to number 4? Probably, but there are other aspects of ports that I like. I *like* that it's made out of make, and can be coerced into doing things *my* way, with little effort. At least I have the fall-back of using the NetBSD pkgsrc system. It is mostly Ports with some additional sophistication for portability. > 7. Same as question 6 but for your answer on question 3? No. If you break 3, you lose me to pkgsrc. > 8. How long have you used FreeBSD and/or UNIX in general? FreeBSD since '94, BSD since '85 or '86. > 9. That is your primary use(s) for your FreeBSD machine(s) (name upto 3)? Workstation (software dev.), production CVS/Perforce/Web server, experimental audio server. > 10. Assuming there is no functional difference what is your preferred > installation method for 3rd party software? Ports. > 11. On a scale from 1 to 10 (10 being the best) please rate the > importance of the following aspects of the ports system? > > a. User Interface 1 (it has a user interface?) > b. Consistency of behaviors and interactions 8 > c. Accuracy in dependant port installations 8 > d. Internal record keeping 4 (this is only a performance issue) > e. Granularity's of the port management system mu (without having seen the discussion, I don't understand the question.) > 12. Please rate your personal technical skill level? Competent. Cheers, -- Andrew _______________________________________________ email@example.com mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"