<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 2:59 AM, Jan Stary <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:hans@stare.cz" target="_blank">hans@stare.cz</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div id=":1mg" class="a3s" style="overflow:hidden">I must be missing your point. What's a "linux-like" package system<br>
as opposed to a "build-from-port" system? Every package built from a port.<br>
How does using options/variants of a port make the resulting package<br>
less usefull (then having a lot of separate packages).</div></blockquote></div><br>Combinatorial explosion prevents you from building every package in every combination of every variant (with every possible dependency, etc.)</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Package systems like rpm/yum and dpkg/apt use a combination of "provides" dependencies (so a package will work with any other package that provides a particular dependency, unlike FreeBSD packages where if the package was built against mysql 5.5 you can't tell it to install against mariadb 5.5). They also use plugins instead of build-time variants, so you install the base package and the plugins you need.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Concrete examples of this come up in #freebsd fairly regularly, usually related to trying to install apache+mysql+php in some configuration that isn't the ports' respective defaults --- the binary packages are useless to them as a result.<br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr"><div>brandon s allbery kf8nh sine nomine associates</div><div><a href="mailto:allbery.b@gmail.com" target="_blank">allbery.b@gmail.com</a> <a href="mailto:ballbery@sinenomine.net" target="_blank">ballbery@sinenomine.net</a></div><div>unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad <a href="http://sinenomine.net" target="_blank">http://sinenomine.net</a></div></div>
</div></div>