It's kind of too bad that this thread started off the way it did, because there is now a bunch of misinformation in it.
The OpenBSD ports system makes binary packages (and then installs them). Those binary packages are managed by the pkg_* tools, which allow users to install, verify, upgrade, delete, etc., packages.
The binary packages are available on the mirrors if you don't want to compile them yourself. You just 'pkg_add <package>' and you're good to go. This is actually the recommended procedure, and users are discouraged from using ports unless they really need to.
> Apt knows how to consume variant packages from alternate sources and then upgrade back into mainline...
If someone else builds a package (mtier, for example), then you can install that package from them, and then upgrade later to a newer / different version of the same package from someone else later. You can have as many package sources as you want just by adding them into the PKG_PATH environment variable.
If you want to build a custom version of a package - in the event that you somehow need one - then you can do that. This is equivalent to modifying the port, which you would do if you were personally updating the port to a new version (before the maintainer did it for you), or adding a new variant, or patching the port in some way. The resulting custom package can generally substitute for the 'official' package, so long as you haven't somehow broken it. If the mainline port is then updated, you can upgrade to it without issue.
If you don't want to upgrade a particular package, then just don't upgrade it - the system will not complain at you unless some other package eventually requires the newer version.
> Apt has an "install from source" system
Building from ports is literally building a package from source. The resulting package is the same as every other package, and will even be signed with your own package signing key (if you set that up). It can be cleanly removed, upgraded, etc., just like everything else.
The OpenBSD packages system is pretty great, and I've used apt. I personally find the pkg_* tools easier to use and more transparent than apt-*/dpkg, but I am sure this just boils down to familiarity. YMMV.
"You can have as many package sources as you want just by adding them into the PKG_PATH environment variable."
This is great! I didn't know this was possible, and it's been one of my biggest complaints about ports on FreeBSD (I don't know if FreeBSD supports something similar now, but it didn't as recently as a few years ago).
Apologies for starting the thread off with some misinformation and seemingly incorrect negativity. I have had many, many, very bad experiences with ports, mostly on FreeBSD. I made some assumptions that OpenBSD ports was equivalent to FreeBSD ports. I also based my comments on out-dated information.
Admittedly, I just have a vague sysop-level knowledge of apt (I've made a few Ubuntu PPAs, etc.), and have also never used the BSD tooling. So thank you for correcting my misinformation.
On the other hand, AFAIK, my "misinformation" is also the "common wisdom" in the Linux sphere on the subject. So I guess I have (unintentionally) used the "Linux can't do X" (or in this case, BSD can't do X) rhetorical trick to prod you into providing the hard facts that were needed in this conversation.
I'm not sure whether I feel bad about doing that. I guess I could have couched my assertions about apt in "so this is what I believe"s. Basically, the reverse of a "this is what I hear you saying, am I understanding you correctly" statement—instead, something more of a "this is what 'my' side is taking as axiomatic assumptions, I think; I'll list mine, and you can list yours, and then we can have a discussion without implicit knowledge." Feels very much like http://lesswrong.com/lw/np/disputing_definitions/, when I put it that way.
The OpenBSD ports system makes binary packages (and then installs them). Those binary packages are managed by the pkg_* tools, which allow users to install, verify, upgrade, delete, etc., packages.
The binary packages are available on the mirrors if you don't want to compile them yourself. You just 'pkg_add <package>' and you're good to go. This is actually the recommended procedure, and users are discouraged from using ports unless they really need to.
> Apt knows how to consume variant packages from alternate sources and then upgrade back into mainline...
If someone else builds a package (mtier, for example), then you can install that package from them, and then upgrade later to a newer / different version of the same package from someone else later. You can have as many package sources as you want just by adding them into the PKG_PATH environment variable.
If you want to build a custom version of a package - in the event that you somehow need one - then you can do that. This is equivalent to modifying the port, which you would do if you were personally updating the port to a new version (before the maintainer did it for you), or adding a new variant, or patching the port in some way. The resulting custom package can generally substitute for the 'official' package, so long as you haven't somehow broken it. If the mainline port is then updated, you can upgrade to it without issue.
If you don't want to upgrade a particular package, then just don't upgrade it - the system will not complain at you unless some other package eventually requires the newer version.
> Apt has an "install from source" system
Building from ports is literally building a package from source. The resulting package is the same as every other package, and will even be signed with your own package signing key (if you set that up). It can be cleanly removed, upgraded, etc., just like everything else.
The OpenBSD packages system is pretty great, and I've used apt. I personally find the pkg_* tools easier to use and more transparent than apt-*/dpkg, but I am sure this just boils down to familiarity. YMMV.