On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 09:48:10PM -0500, Jon Noack wrote:
> >Packages on pointyhat may not always be consistent or working.
> >Furthermore, they may not interoperate as expected with what you have
> > on your own system, because ports are customized for installed
> >packages and build settings
On 05/31/04 21:40, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 05:29:38PM -0500, Jon Noack wrote:
What I envision: Packages are already being built (for example,
http://pointyhat.freebsd.org/errorlogs/i386-packages-5-latest/).
The ports system would default to using the package if available,
bu
On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 05:29:38PM -0500, Jon Noack wrote:
> What I envision:
> Packages are already being built (for example,
> http://pointyhat.freebsd.org/errorlogs/i386-packages-5-latest/). The
> ports system would default to using the package if available, but there
> would be an option t
I was recently reading a packaging discussion over on the DragonFly
kernel list ("apt-get" thread -- originally "first release date"
thread). Some of it touched on the time required to build when using a
source-based packaging system. This gave me an idea: why don't we
integrate the bento clu
