I think I do understand the port/package differences, but let me explain where I am coming from so you have a better idea of what I am trying to acheive.
I have an old laptop that I don't really use anymore and is frankly too slow for Windows XP, so I decided to go the FreeBSD route. Right now, the laptop is of no use to me as I also have a Powerbook which I use for important stuff. Plus, it has 'only' 5Gb of hard drive, and I want to keep most of it for Videos and MP3's etc. So, I am just 'fiddling' with FreeBSD to see how I can create a system that is useful for just browsing the web, maybe streaming audio from my iTunes over wireless etc. Now, I don't want to run before I can leap, so I am messing with things to see what I like and what I don't, what works and what doesn't which also means I am frequently reinstalling (I appreciate I prob don't need to do this, but I am having fun!).
An important aspect of this is to get a window manager/desktop environment on the machine. I do not like Gnome or KDE, and want a really basic shell which I can then build on. Because Gnome and KDE both have dependencies for things I will never use, such as the Pilot Sync stuff and games and Koffice etc, and as they appear quite bloaty (and I don't like th elook of them), I decided to use XFCE. XFCE is not included as a package on the ISO's I have, so I had to install from the Ports tree, but the tree on the 5.2.1 CD only has XFCE 4.0.0, whereas the ports site has 4.0.4. I looked everywhere for a package of XFCE4, but presumably due to the dependencies and modules etc, it is not possible to have a single package to do this, and I didn't fancy getting packages for each dependency and then misisng something and it failing. Plus, I quite like the idea of building from source anyway...
So, I was hoping there was a way that I still get all of the applications I require (see list below), but not having to install the entire 300mb ports collection on the machine, or having to resolve dependencies myself.
I hope this clears it up, either way though, however i can get XFCE4, OpenOffice, Firefox, Thunderbird and some kind of media player I haven't decided on yet, installed easily on my machine without wasting space is useful!
Oh, and BTW I wrongly thought the ports tree was 600mb, not 300mb (thats a lot of MP3's difference) so it doesn't actually seem that bad to install it! I am stil interested for the answer though...
Thanks
Killermink
----Original Message Follows---- From: Joe Altman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killermink! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: updated ports tree Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 21:52:00 -0400
On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 11:41:36PM +0000, Killermink ! wrote: > I see what your saying and i suppose I have two points: > > 1) Can you install a port without installing the ports tree?
I see that you and I are using terms that aren't really at odds, in what we mean; but are at odds in what they are normally used for.
Let me explain: you are, in your query, and in your previous email, talking about packages. What you want to do is download a pre-compiled binary of each application you wish to use, and install each one.
So no, you cannot install *from* the ports tree without installing the ports tree. But you *can* install a pre-compiled binary, entirely bypassing the ports tree.
> 2) If you must install the ports tree, what is the best way to keep it up > to date?
AFAIK, the best way is the only way: via a make update/kernel/world process run out of /usr/src/ and employing cvs. I suggest cd'ing to /usr/src/ and reading the Makefile there; it is well-commented.
> I am still new at this, and can't seem to find packages for all the > ports in the tree...
You will not find packages for any port in the ports tree. Have you looked at the various mirrors for the binary you wish to install? That's where you will find the packages you seek. There, or perhaps on one of your 5.x CDs?
However, it occurs to me that the pre-compiled binaries might take up as much room as the ports tree and the distiles they fetch, if the packages are large enough. I'd bet that this is an FAQ, of sorts; and that someone might actually take a stab at answering it.
They probably do not: my /usr/ports/ tree, without distfiles, comes to about 300 and some few meg out of a gigabyte...sheesh:
61M /usr/ports/distfiles/teTeX 87M /usr/ports/distfiles/gnome2
I'm almost sorry I looked.
HTH, Killermink; let me know if I've made things clearer or foggier, please.
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: Joe Altman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: Killermink! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: updated ports tree
> Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 14:23:37 -0400
>
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 10:04:06PM +0000, Killermink ! wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I am about to (re)install FreeBSD 5.2.1, and wish to make sure I have the
> > latest ports afterwards. I do not really wish to install the whole ports
> > tree from sysinstall as disk space is at a premium, and i will (soon)
> have
> > a fast internet connection so seems pointless when i am only going to
> > install like 10 ports. Also, the ports tree on the 5.2.1 ISO is out of
> date
> > now.
> >
> > I have read the manual over and over, but cannot fathom how I can make a
> > port without the whole ports tree being installed...
> >
> > Is it possible to make a port in this way, and how is it done?
>
> If disk space is at a premium with an out of date ports tree, and
> ports were likely added in the interim, then disk space will still be
> an issue with a current ports tree, no?
>
> So you may want to:
>
> 1) use packages, and skip ports entirely
>
> or
>
> 2) install the ports tree, and update it as a part of a make world
> process.
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself with cool emoticons - download MSN Messenger today! http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger
_______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
