On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Alejandro Imass a...@p2ee.org wrote:
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Devin Teske devin.te...@fisglobal.com wrote:
Of course, this is explicit to rather serious production environments.
Desktop and casual usage ... ports may serve you better if you like to stay
On 10-01-2012, Tue [08:51:33], n j wrote:
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Alejandro Imass a...@p2ee.org wrote:
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Devin Teske devin.te...@fisglobal.com
wrote:
Of course, this is explicit to rather serious production environments.
Desktop and casual usage ...
On 10/01/2012 09:23, Dmitry Sarkisov wrote:
Would be nice to know if there any plans on switching to pkgng or any other
pkg management
system in a future.
pkgng is under active development with the stated aim of replacing the
current packaging system. If you want to get involved, check out
Op 9-1-2012 23:00, alexus schreef:
Thank you so much for this wonderful feedback!
One of the things I'm seeing is that unfortunately packages are
somewhat limited vs ports...
For example:
I'm trying to get Apache httpd + PHP to work, after pkg_add -r php5,
php5 doesn't have libphp5.so that
On 10-01-2012, Tue [10:16:06], Matthew Seaman wrote:
On 10/01/2012 09:23, Dmitry Sarkisov wrote:
Would be nice to know if there any plans on switching to pkgng or any other
pkg management
system in a future.
pkgng is under active development with the stated aim of replacing the
Dick Hoogendijk d...@nagual.nl writes:
Hi,
As I write in another reply: that's true and totally stupid imo.
*You* think it's stupid.
There's not one true way to serve php pages, more and more platforms use
a lightweight httpd daemon like nginx and php-fpm for example.
If you manage many
Op 10-1-2012 12:36, Eric Masson schreef:
Dick Hoogendijkd...@nagual.nl writes:
Hi,
As I write in another reply: that's true and totally stupid imo.
*You* think it's stupid.
Yes, as I wrote: stupid imo
But thanks again for your reply. You may be right but I still feel it's
better to *have*
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 7:12 AM, Dick Hoogendijk d...@nagual.nl wrote:
Op 10-1-2012 12:36, Eric Masson schreef:
Dick Hoogendijkd...@nagual.nl writes:
Hi,
As I write in another reply: that's true and totally stupid imo.
*You* think it's stupid.
Yes, as I wrote: stupid imo
But thanks
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 7:12 AM, Dick Hoogendijk d...@nagual.nl wrote:
Op 10-1-2012 12:36, Eric Masson schreef:
Dick Hoogendijkd...@nagual.nl writes:
Hi,
As I write in another reply: that's true and totally stupid imo.
*You* think it's stupid.
Yes, as I wrote: stupid imo
But thanks
Alejandro Imass a...@p2ee.org writes:
Hi,
IMO it's stupid as well and I second Dick's opinion.
You're at least two, great.
The module doesn't hurt anyone, and reduces confusion. I think that
PHP is still more heavily deployed on mod_php than on anything else.
The Apache module should be
On 1/9/12 6:48 PM, claudiu vasadi wrote:
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 6:17 PM, alexus ale...@gmail.com wrote:
Ports vs Packages?
/usr/ports vs pkg_*
pros/cons
--
http://alexus.org/
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Devin Teske devin.te...@fisglobal.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-
[...]
Of course, this is explicit to rather serious production environments.
Desktop and casual usage ... ports may serve
-Original Message-
From: aim...@yabarana.com [mailto:aim...@yabarana.com] On Behalf Of
Alejandro Imass
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 11:37 AM
To: Devin Teske
Cc: alexus; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: ports vs packages
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Devin Teske
Thank you so much for this wonderful feedback!
One of the things I'm seeing is that unfortunately packages are
somewhat limited vs ports...
For example:
I'm trying to get Apache httpd + PHP to work, after pkg_add -r php5,
php5 doesn't have libphp5.so that links Apache and PHP together... so
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 5:00 PM, alexus ale...@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you so much for this wonderful feedback!
One of the things I'm seeing is that unfortunately packages are
somewhat limited vs ports...
For example:
I'm trying to get Apache httpd + PHP to work, after pkg_add -r php5,
php5
On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 01:17:01PM -0800, Jose Borquez wrote:
When installing the same software using either the ports or a package
do they both install in the same locations? For Example installing
Apache from ports on one server and installing Apache from packages on
another server would
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 13:17:01 -0800
Jose Borquez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When installing the same software using either the ports or a
package do they both install in the same locations? For Example
installing Apache from ports on one server and installing Apache from
packages on another
Jose Borquez wrote:
When installing the same software using either the ports or a package do
they both install in the same locations? For Example installing Apache
from ports on one server and installing Apache from packages on another
server would still use the same locations for both?
Nathan Vidican wrote:
Jose Borquez wrote:
When installing the same software using either the ports or a package
do they both install in the same locations? For Example installing
Apache from ports on one server and installing Apache from packages
on another server would still use the same
Jose Borquez wrote:
Nathan Vidican wrote:
Jose Borquez wrote:
When installing the same software using either the ports or a package
do they both install in the same locations? For Example installing
Apache from ports on one server and installing Apache from packages
on another server
Charles Howse wrote:
Packages are nice for the speed you can install them with,
but can be much
harder to deal with the dependencies unless you use something like
portupgrade (which is much more useful after you've got what you want
installed and want to keep it all up to date).
Well,
On Mon, 2003-08-18 at 19:14, Charles Howse wrote:
I'm confused ( which is not an uncommon occurrence ), let's say I know I
don't need to edit the source code of any of the additional software
that I plan to install, but I want the latest version.
Should I install from ports or
Neither. I'd recommend installing sysutils/portupgrade and using the
portinstall option to fetch install packages (so you always get the
latest version). Check the -P and -PP options to portinstall.
Note that doing this will require you to have an updated ports tree.
You'll need to cvsup
Charles Howse wrote:
I'm confused ( which is not an uncommon occurrence ), let's say I know I
don't need to edit the source code of any of the additional software
that I plan to install, but I want the latest version.
Should I install from ports or sysistall/packages/FTP?
I just installed
On Mon, 2003-08-18 at 19:25, Charles Howse wrote:
Will doing it that way require all the compiling?
No, packages are pre-compiled. Note that you'll sometimes have to wait a little longer
to get the updated packages, since the maintainer has to submit a compiled binary, but
doesn't always do
Will doing it that way require all the compiling?
No, packages are pre-compiled. Note that you'll sometimes
have to wait a little longer to get the updated packages,
since the maintainer has to submit a compiled binary, but
doesn't always do so immediately after a port is updated.
On Monday 18 August 2003 04:25 pm, Charles Howse wrote:
Neither. I'd recommend installing sysutils/portupgrade and using the
portinstall option to fetch install packages (so you always get the
latest version). Check the -P and -PP options to portinstall.
Note that doing this will
Packages are nice for the speed you can install them with,
but can be much
harder to deal with the dependencies unless you use something like
portupgrade (which is much more useful after you've got what you want
installed and want to keep it all up to date).
Well, that begs the question,
On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 07:34:04PM -0400, Adam McLaurin wrote:
On Mon, 2003-08-18 at 19:25, Charles Howse wrote:
Will doing it that way require all the compiling?
No, packages are pre-compiled. Note that you'll sometimes have to wait a little
longer to get the updated packages, since the
On Mon, 2003-08-18 at 22:41, Kris Kennaway wrote:
Please wrap your lines at 70 characters so your mail can be easily read.
Sorry, my client (Evo 1.4.4) is set to wrap, but for some reason it
occasionally decides not to. It's probably some weird GTK bug.
--
Adam McLaurin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
30 matches
Mail list logo
