On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 07:16:47PM +0200, Johan Torin wrote: > On Saturday 20 May 2006 15:03, Lars Hansson wrote: > > What "make update" does is eactly what the pkg tools does, ie pkg_add -r so > > it's neather better or worse. Well, it's worse because you need to install > > the entire ports tree and compile the port into a package etc. Just using > > packages is faster and easier. > > It be can't said too many times that with FETCH_PACKAGES=YES, PKG_PATH > set to a few ftp-mirrors of the packages, compiling is not neccesary. > > I have personally always disliked installing packages - searching on > some ftp-site or in a gigantic index file for a file which name is > different for more or less every release... and sometimes not finding > it because distribution is not permitted. Maybe it's just me but...
FWIW, this is not usually the case. And the new package tools give sensible results if you simply do pkg_add nmap - i.e., it pkg_adds the thing if it could expand to one package, or shows a list otherwise. This is a lot nicer than going through FTP every time. Though the latter can be adequately solved by having cron get ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/3.9/packages/i386/index.txt, and grepping that. > I would like to point out (for those poor souls that somehow missed this) > that FETCH_PACKAGES is simply *the* best thing since... sliced bread. > It downloads what it can find, compiles the rest. Easy to keep up with > updates: cd /usr/ports/ && cvs -q up -rOPENBSD_X_Y && pkg_add -ui The ports interface is quite nice, though. Joachim