1

Topic: FreeBSD ports instead of pkgs?

Hi,

is there any reason why on FreeBSD ports are used instead of packages? Are custom build option needed?

From "Absolute FreeBSD" by Michael W. Lucas:

Ports and Production
I would strongly encourage you to build your own package repository with
poudriere and manage your servers’ ports from that repository. Upgrading
ports directly installed on a host is annoying and difficult. Tools like port-
master and portupgrade are obsolete at this moment, and while they might
get updated or rewritten, poudriere is the eternal method. You have been
warned. Explore ports on a disposable test system.

----

Spider Email Archiver: On-Premises, lightweight email archiving software developed by iRedMail team. Supports Amazon S3 compatible storage and custom branding.

2

Re: FreeBSD ports instead of pkgs?

Diamond_Head wrote:

is there any reason why on FreeBSD ports are used instead of packages? Are custom build option needed?

Exactly, for example, postfix/dovecot need LDAP/SQL/PGSQL support.

If you really like binary packages, OpenBSD is the best. smile

3

Re: FreeBSD ports instead of pkgs?

+1, I am also worried about this ;-)

Most FreeBSD users use poudriere for custom/tune package options.

We have a 'make.conf' for iRedMail that we can put into poudriere and thus build all the packages with the correct options.

Thus, the user can add a preferred (priority) repository and enjoy fast installation of dependencies.

If the iRedMail project has the resources to run the poudriere and create a public repository for users (Linux way ;-), that would be great. But of course, I'm referring primarily to private repositories.

4

Re: FreeBSD ports instead of pkgs?

Dandy wrote:

If the iRedMail project has the resources to run the poudriere and create a public repository for users (Linux way ;-), that would be great. But of course, I'm referring primarily to private repositories.

It brings trust issue then, sysadmins must trust our binary packages. I'd rather not enter this area.