Subject: Re: solaris pkgsrc, gcc, and bulk builds (fwd)
To: Eric Boutilier <Eric.Boutilier@Sun.COM>
From: Mark Linimon <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 02/07/2005 18:42:41
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, Eric Boutilier wrote:
> In the world of open-source software (OSS) there are just a few
> "distros" that are source-based. The two major ones appear to be
> Portage (gentoo.org) and Pkgsrc (netbsd.org).
I don't wish to be rude here, as I'm a FreeBSD developer who just
monitors the list to stay informed, but ...
According to my latest statistics, the FreeBSD ports collection stands
at 12313 ports*, the majority of which are source-based (a few include
Linux RPMs that we run in compatibility mode; there are a scattered
number of other binary-only ports.)
Currently of the above number, we package up over 11000. (A few
hundred cannot be packaged due to licensing restrictions; the others
have various build problems.)
This is not to say that the Ports Collection is either better or worse
than pkgsrc -- for one thing, they have different goals and methodologies.
(pkgsrc is branched and FreeBSD's tree isn't; FreeBSD runs on far fewer
architectures, although it does include sparc64. Each of these allows
certain simplifications.) The point of this post isn't really to belabor
any of the above -- but surely any survey of source-based applications
frameworks should include FreeBSD's work.
for the Ports Management team at FreeBSD.org :-)
* the FreeBSD terminology is: 'port' is the application framework
such as Makefiles; 'package' is the resulting binary. This is as
opposed to the NetBSD meaning of 'port' as 'processor architecture'.