"Jeremy C. Reed" <reed%reedmedia.net@localhost> wrote: > On Sun, 8 Apr 2012, Jan Schaumann wrote: > > > > - in comparison to other systems, including, in particular, FreeBSD, our > > > use of pkgsrc with binary packages is quite cumbersome. This is a > > > quite serious issue for casual and novice users, who may not (yet?) > > > understand or appreciate pkgsrc's strength > > > > I've been pointed at the 'pkgin' tool, which might help with > > installation of binary packages. I have not yet used this tool, but it > > sounds like it's going in the right direction. > > I find it surprising that you (or your students?) mentioned FreeBSD. I > use its ports/packages often and it is more cumbersome. Perhaps. However, in the use cases we had in class, students were able to add binary packages without any problems. Now this certainly isn't an in-depth comparison (nor does it pretend to be), but just the impression left with the students. > > > - some of the packages built for NetBSD 6.0 Beta simply do not work (on > > > the AMIs?): apache-2.2.21* installed, but the executable failed with > > > missing or conflicting dependencies (I have not yet had the time to > > > file a PR, I'm afraid) > > > > I had filed PR pkg/46309 for this. Apparently apache depends on a > > library found in the xbase set, but pkgsrc has no way of expressing such > > a dependence. > > > But you showed example of even building with pkgsrc you had problem. No, this particular case is in regards to the binary package only. -Jan
Attachment:
pgpXCY51W5DKO.pgp
Description: PGP signature