2 ms·
What exactly do you think pkg(1) is for? [1] [1]: https://docs-archive.freebsd.org/doc/10.3-RELEASE/usr/local/share/doc/freebsd/zh_TW/books/handbook/pkgng-intr
by jen20 7mo ago
What exactly do you think pkg(1) is for? [1]
[1]: https://docs-archive.freebsd.org/doc/10.3-RELEASE/usr/local/share/doc/freebsd/zh_TW/books/handbook/pkgng-intro.html https://docs-archive.freebsd.org/doc/10.3-RELEASE/usr/local/...
- tosti 7mo agoI just use pkgsrc from netbsd
- jen20 7mo agoAh right, that doesn’t have binary distribution at all. Oh wait [1]. [1]: https://www.netbsd.org/docs/pkgsrc/bulk.html https://www.netbsd.org/docs/pkgsrc/bulk.html
- tosti 7mo agoWho besides Joyent and NetBSD would ever do a bulk build? Portage can also do binary packages. That doesn't mean you have to have them. You can just not ever enable them and be fine.
- jen20 7mo agoBy that logic, Docker doesn't have to do image distribution either...
- tosti 7mo agoIn pkgsrc, building packages isn't done by default and 100% optional. I'm not sure what logic you're ascertaining here. There were operating systems before package managers and AFAICT IIRC the first package manager "repository" was a stack of floppies. But yes, there's always a choice to be made. Docker could separate out the image repository elsewhere. It could integrate buildroot. It could use a suitable initramfs generator. I'm not sure why present day devs like to create a hodgepodge of different distros mashed together and even do it all from CI, while the same CI could also run gmake on a source tree. For a sysadmin, docker would be fine. For a programmer, dealing with binary blobs all day, that's IMNSHO not what programming should be about.