[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reinstalling, then upgrading (Was Re: Salvageable? (Was Re:makeinstallworld error))
- Subject: Reinstalling, then upgrading (Was Re: Salvageable? (Was Re:makeinstallworld error))
- From: mailist at whoweb.com (mailist_(_at_)_whoweb_(_dot_)_com)
- Date: Wed Aug 25 07:32:48 2004
On Wednesday 25 August 2004 09:28 am, Charles Ulrich wrote:
> epilogue said:
> >> Just out of curiosity, is it incorrect to simply say that ports build
> >> packages?
> > Yes.
> Well, now I've received one explicit "yes" answer and one explicit "no"
> answer to this question, leading me to believe that there might not be a
> clear consensus even among experienced FreeBSD users. (I count myself as
> one also.) It's possible that we're splitting hairs with all of this, but
> splitting hairs is what explanation is all about.
Maybe because you used a negative (incorrect) instead of a positive (correct)?
I had to read the above exchange three times before I realized he was saying,
yes it is incorrect. I thought he was agreeing, originally.
No, it is not incorrect.....yes, it is correct.....to say that FreeBSD ports
build FreeBSD packages. The last thing a FreeBSD port does is register
itself as a loaded package. You can run pkg_info() and see that your port
has been installed on the system.
Furthermore, I agree with the original email stating that ports v package is
confusing terminology for people new to FreeBSD. As pointed out by a
subsequent post, the documented explanation is quite clear. However, it
would be nice to use terminology that was "prima facia" obvious.
Unfortunately, what is "obvious" is usually in the mind of the beholder.
Personally, I would prefer "port" and "binary". Or maybe "port" and
"ready-to-load". I've never understood how the work "package" was an
obvious indicator that the contents were pre-compiled and ready to load.
Visit your host, monkey.org