Subject: Re: Compilation times...
To: Richard Rauch <email@example.com>
From: Matthias Buelow <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 03/08/2005 12:27:53
Richard Rauch wrote:
[pkgsrc source build benefits]
I'm not suggesting that you should stick to binary builds. I also use
pkgsrc for packages for which I use non-default options, or which are,
unfortunately, not available as binary packages. What I'd like, though,
is an even stronger binary package system, with more attention by the
developers (of course, that depends on the maintainers' free time).
Ideally, imho, binary packages would be the standard way of doing things
(at least for the more common architectures, like i386), and pkgsrc the
backend for building them, available but optional for the end user.
Pkgsrc is fine and well but I typically have >200 packages on a desktop
setup, including many that take a long time to build (like firefox,
thunderbird, gimp) even on today's 3GHz PCs. It's simply not
time-economical for me anymore to build everything myself. It's not
1995 anymore, where one was satisfied with a handful of 3rd party
packages on top of the OS. That's why I'm a big fan of the pkgsrc
stable branch, and assorted binary package builds, and the relatively
easy handling of remote package installation via pkg_add and PKG_PATH.
And, of course, you also have to position NetBSD's package mechanism
against that of other desktop systems, like certain Gnu/Linux
distributions, which have a very powerful binary package mechanism that
make it easy to set up a machine with packages really fast (and also