Re: Can pkgin and pkgsrc (binary and source) cooperate better?

[Mayuresh <mayuresh%acm.org@localhost>]

On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 10:24:32PM +0300, Aleksej Saushev wrote:
> Mayuresh <mayuresh%acm.org@localhost> writes:
> 
> > Build from source is more relevant when A. A binary package is not
> > available B. You want to configure options.
> >
> > If above is not the case, a binary package helps you quickly get going.
> >
> > Particularly when you are in situation where you are building something
> > like libreoffice after a long time and most of the dependencies need
> > upgrade, you wish some of the packages could be readily installed as
> > binary.
> 
> DEPENDS_TARGET= bin-install
> 
> and set BINPKG_SITES accordingly. Yet this won't help when the rebuild is forced.

Thanks for the tip.

I did some experiments with a mixture of pkgsrc and pkgin. I realize, it
is possible (do not know how) for binaries / libraries to go out of sync.
I ran into core dumps etc.

Haven't analyzed in detail like which library it was and whether a
dependency was missing etc.

However looks like pkgin makes sense if binary repository is kept up to
date.

Also, curious whether there are stable quarterly binary repositories. I
could not find one. (And also if it exists, whether it will be complete
and consistent.)


For now, I am switching back to pkgsrc alone. It's only the likes of
libreoffice that forced me to consider binary route. Having installed that
I think life is much easier with pkgsrc.

Mayuresh.