Why a Port? (was Re: [snort] Snort 1.5)

[mah@everybody.org (Mark A. Hershberger)]

>>>>> "KP" == Karsten Patzwaldt <karsten@gedankenpolizei.de> writes:

    KP> Maybe it's good for catching some attention or for ease of
    KP> use, but questions about a qmail port are for example always
    KP> replied with "we don't need no port, it compiles just fine",
    KP> and I think that it is not really necessary to put everything
    KP> in the ports tree just to have it there.

As a sysadmin, one reason for creating a port is so that I easily
install and upgrade software on multiple machines.  If the port is
done properly, I can create a package so all I have to do is set up
Cfengine to do a pkg_add on a machine.

OpenBSD has done a great job in making the core OS easy to admin --
more so than Solaris, Linux (most any distribution), or FreeBSD.  I
was not aware, though, that the attitude was "Oh, it compiles just
fine so no port is needed."  If that is the attitude, then it really
isn't in sync with the attention paid to administration in the core
OS.

That being said, I have created, for my own use, ports for elisp
packages, qmail, ezmlm, etc.  It is far easier to install or remove a
package on multiple machines than it is to "just compile" it over and
over again.

Theo was right with the ruckus he caused here a few weeks ago.  Ports
should produce packages.  It is far easier not only on the luser, but
also the sysadmin who has to muck around with various machines.

Mark.

-- 
This Unix stuff make DOS look like a three-piece tinkertoy set.
	-- K Kenneth Clark