--Signature=_Tue__8_Feb_2005_19_22_18_+0100_ok9c2iLDCis2yUkx
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 18:02:55 +0100
Roman Kennke <roman@ontographics.com> wrote:

> Hi list,
> 
> I am thinking about using pkgsrc on one of my FreeBSD servers, mainly
> because the FreeBSD ports tree isn't really suitable for production use.
> The main problem for me is, that I am forced to go with the most current
> FreeBSD-Ports tree if I want updates. This regularily breaks some little
> things. I see that FreeBSD is in the supported list for the pkgsrc tree.
> Before I switch, I'd like to hear some opinions about this:
> 
> 1. Is FreeBSD equally well supported in pkgsrc as NetBSD is? My concern
> are security updates and unmaintained packages

Maybe not as NetBSD, but FreeBSD works fine in many packages without
changes, because sometimes a software developer knows FreeBSD and not
NetBSD... :-)

> 2. Are security updates delivered timely? Ok, no big deal if not, they
> are not always delivered timely in FreeBSD ports... ;-)

In the same day or 2/3 days after the bug is reported (more or less).

> 3. What is the best method for updating without breaking stuff? Make
> update? pkg_comp? probably something else?

pkg_comp with AUTO_PACKAGES and the auto target should be a safe
method, and later you can use pkg_add -u.

> 4. Are there performance differences between ports compiled and pkgsrc
> compiled packages?

No, because you can specify the compilation flags you want via CFLAGS
in mk.conf.

> 5. Are there other caveats in a setup like this? Any recommendations?

No, AFAIK.

--Signature=_Tue__8_Feb_2005_19_22_18_+0100_ok9c2iLDCis2yUkx
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFCCQNeypkLYVDran0RAisnAKC3bQzFaefZjlg8D2/qdzZrH+8sYgCgnQH6
JNMEQdPShQRbXT9kiaE8pHo=
=r+2H
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Signature=_Tue__8_Feb_2005_19_22_18_+0100_ok9c2iLDCis2yUkx--