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

Reply via email to