Re: pkg upgrade vs building from source

On Sun, 9 Oct 2022, Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:

> On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 16:25:24 -0700
> paul beard <paulbeard@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It would be best to rely on one or the other, to be sure. Pkg handles the
>> registration of ports/pkgs alike so not sure if I can query if a port was
>> built from source or as a pkg. I don't think I have installed many from
>> source, just postfix for certain. That may have been unduly hasty.
>
> 	One catch when mixing a few ports into a mostly package based setup
> is that the port build often builds dependencies which can then get used by
> packages installed later. The trick is to use make install-missing-packages
> before building (I used to use pkg install -A `make missing` before I
> discovered that). Then pkg lock the port.

First I want to say pkg is vastly superior to the system it replaced.
For us production servers are created with poudriere saving ports trees at
each level we create a server.

I am a FreeBSD workstation guy using only pkg. I use Xfce, firefox, and
thunderbird which is a fairly toxic combination because of dynamic
libraries and other dependencies among that set. When I install anything
new if it ends up wanted to upgrade any of the major systems, I test it out
on a jail.

Finally there are some 150k+ ports and 80K modules comprising FreeBSD. The
number of possible combination of interactions is pretty large.