[chef] Re: Re: FreeBSD package provider, past and future

[Bryan McLellan < >]

On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Julian C. Dunn 
<
 >
 wrote:
> It seems like we should have two providers for FreeBSD, one for
> packages and one for compiling things from source.

Looking briefly, it's not clear to me that they're really separate.
pkg_add installs a package made from ports, and pkg_add -r installs a
package made from ports that's in a remote repository. Until
pkgng/freebsd 10, it seems that freebsd is still really ports based.

> I've always preferred ports to "pkg_add -r" when administering FreeBSD
> systems. The biggest reason is that often the packages are broken
> (e.g. built with some libc or other nonsense that isn't the right
> major version as the one on your system), or certain binary packages
> don't exist as they are kernel-dependent (e.g. virtio-kmod)

Right. I'm thinking about Gentoo with binary packages. It seems a lot
like binary packages are something you could do, not what you do.

> We should probably also open a ticket for adding a pkgng provider to
> Chef, as FreeBSD 10 is about to be released. I see a few floating
> around the Internet [1]

https://tickets.opscode.com/browse/CHEF-4637

Bryan