in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, wrote Patrick Useldinger thusly... > > (Building from source) allows you to compile with the compiler > options you want, you are able to optimize the binaries for your > CPU, but: does it really matter? Are the speed improvements really > visible?
I haven't run any benchmarks related to speed for use of software on a personal, non-server computer. In case when debugging support in a software would be needed, already built software would be lacking. > Dependencies was another argument: you compile with the correct > headers of dependant files, well... is that really so? If you > upgraded the dependant binaries, wouldn't you get the same effect? I see compiling from source as a way to reduce and/or alter dependencies, and number/size of installed files. One drawback of using pkg_add to install a binary package is that it requires unnecessary upgrade of dependencies. If a package to be installed requires x-1.2.3 but x-1.2.2_p9 is already installed AND there will be no problem of using x-1.2.2_p9, x-1.2.3 will be installed regardless in addition to x-1.2.2_p9, quite possibly overwriting the files. The packages are almost never suitable for me even though i do not run servers other than for personal needs. > One certain drawback of compiling from source is the compilation > time. Large packages like KDE or OpenOffice take ages, so you > can't just "quickly" upgrade a whole system That sure is true, in addition to requirement of large build space too, jdk-1.4 requires ~1.7 GB for example. BTW, your concerns have had been dealt w/ in past, at least once this year. - Parv -- _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
