Re: /usr/home vs /home
In the old days home was typically a separate partition that was mounted on /home. If you didn't have a partition the installer would create /usr/home and symlink /home to it. The root was also typically an independent partition, so it made sense not to clutter it up with home directories. Now that the default behavior is to use one big partition, the installer defaults to /usr/home + symlink. I've always liked the more succinct /home and was wondering if there is any reason why not to delete the symlink and move home to / to mimic the old many partition style? thanks, dave c My preference is to use the traditional /home, on a separate partition. That way, user data can be kept safe in the case of a major upgrading or revamping of the system. This principle is even applicable for MS-Windows, even if the user-data partition is not called home. A Linux user can run two or more distributions sharing the same /home with each other, but not the same /home as for FreeBSD because of different file system. bsdinstall on FreeBSD 9.0-BETA1 changed my /home to a symlink to /usr/home, but I changed it back to my preference. I read that PC-BSD considers /usr/home to be correct. I agree with Martin Sugioarto mar...@sugioarto.com on preparing the disks myself rather than letting the installer do it. bsdinstall only made things more difficult for partitioning the disk, not allowing enough space, and also bsdinstall's boot partition was nonfunctional for me. But I don't see any advantage to putting /, /usr, and /var on separate partitions. Tom ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: 9.0 beta2 the new bsdinstaller
Some more ideas on the new bsdinstaller cross my mind. Since the way the bsdinstaller would make partitions is unpredictable, at least to the uninitiated, and in all likelihood at variance with how much space the user wants to allocate, it might be better to offer a roadmap to help guide the user to allocating space for FreeBSD using gpart or Rod Smith's gdisk. Also, I can't see the function of the 64 KB boot partition with no file system, which does not boot for me, though I can boot the main partition using grub2 from the System Rescue CD (http://sysresccd.org/). Another concern is updating to the next beta (BETA3?) without trashing the installed application software (from ports). So far, bsdinstaller hasn't offered any possibility of upgrading an existing installation. I don't think a user wants to rebuild all ports for every new beta or release candidate. Tom ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: no X after installing xorg + xfce
I have successfully installed FreeBSD-9.0-BETA2 to an amd64 bit machine, I have used the ports to install xfce and xorg. When I type startx, I get a screen with a bunch of colors no mouse, no keyboard, just colors. The machine has nvidia onboard graphics. I am trying to get kernel sources installed via sysinstall to install nvidia-driver but I can't get anywhere from any ftp site I select at random. I have updated to latest sources available on the ports and it comes up the same. I have to use the nv driver, should I try the nouveau driver? What should I do? I want to help in testing and have no way to report bugs as without X there's not much one can do :( Is it not automatically installed when one goes into /usr/ports/x11/xorg, and runs make install clean? Regards, Antonio You would get the xorg server with the xorg metaport/megaport. One thing I can think of is a little dirty trick I have seen in FreeBSD but not NetBSD or Linux, X comes up but no response to mouse or keyboard. I ran startx, got twm with its windows, but no response to mouse or keyboard. Cure was, to include in /etc/rc.conf hald_enable=YES dbus_enable=YES Tom ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Screwy behavior in ports framework
I just installed FreeBSD 9.0-BETA2 last night, now I try to build ports starting with Perl 5.14.1 (successful), then Python 2.7 fails on something dubious, but when I try to build Lynx, ports framework can't find a directory right under its nose. Problem is with dependency libiconv-1.13.1_1. I am using the ports tree from BETA1, from portsnap, hence ports directory is /BETA1/usr/ports, BETA1 being the BETA1 partition/file system. My /etc/make.conf is PORTSDIR=/BETA1/usr/ports PACKAGES=/usr/packages WRKDIR=workb2 # added by use.perl 2011-09-13 02:49:43 PERL_VERSION=5.14.1 Error screen shows, copied with the mouse, thanks to moused: amelia2# ls workb2 .extract_done.libiconv._usr_local libiconv-1.13.1 amelia2# ls workb2/libiconv-1.13.1/ ABOUT-NLS Makefile.devel aclocal.m4 gnulib-localsrc AUTHORS Makefile.in autogen.sh include srclib COPYING NEWSbuild-aux lib srcm4 COPYING.LIB NOTES config.h.in libcharset tests ChangeLog PORTS configure m4 tools DEPENDENCIESREADME configure.acman windows DESIGN README.djgppdjgpp os2 woe32dll HACKING README.woe32doc po INSTALL.generic THANKS extras preload amelia2# make package-recursive | tee build.log === Patching for libiconv-1.13.1_1 === Applying distribution patches for libiconv-1.13.1_1 patch: can't cd to workb2/libiconv-1.13.1: No such file or directory *** Error code 1 Stop in /BETA1/usr/ports/converters/libiconv. *** Error code 1 Stop in /BETA1/usr/ports/converters/libiconv. amelia2# pwd /BETA1/usr/ports/converters/libiconv amelia2# (end of quote) FreeBSD system or ports system can't find a directory right under its nose! I had gone into directory /BETA1/usr/ports/converters/libiconv to build that dependency before returning to lynx, but now seem stuck, or am I overlooking something hopelessly simple? Tom ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: 9.0 beta2 the new bsdinstaller
Actually, I think this kind of question is for the freebsd-current list, so I respond on that list. Problem with the old sysinstall is that sysinstall expects installation sets to be broken into 1392 KB chunks as opposed to a full .tgz, .tbz or .txz, or so I believe: I could be wrong. I thought NetBSD had a much better installer (sysinst) compared to FreeBSD sysinstall, but the new installer may reverse that. New installer still leaves me confused at times. I downloaded BETA2 amd64 memstick file and dd'ed it to a USB stick but haven't booted it yet. Base installation ought to be preselected because it is necessary for installed system to be functional, but others might be optional. For ports, I prefer to use portsnap. I intend to keep ports tree from BETA1 and use 'portsnap fetch update' but will have to note in /etc/make.conf that the ports tree is on a different partition, like maybe PORTSDIR=/BETA1/usr/ports Keyboard selection with regard to language in BETA1 was confusing. It is not always necessary to remove the CD, DVD or memstick after installation. One might go into the BIOS or UEFI and change the boot priority, or on my MSI motherboard, I can get a boot menu by hitting F11 when the MSI motherboard splash screen appears. In my case, I intend to delete my nonfunctional NetBSD partitions and make FreeBSD partition in that space; not sure if I need a special boot partition. 64K boot partition for BETA1 played no role, since I started BETA1 from the System Rescue CD (http://sysresccd.org/), selecting Super Grub Disk, then hitting c for command prompt, and set root=(hd0,9) kfreebsd /boot/loader boot I had a problem with the memstick running out of inodes, since the partition on the USB stick had no extra space even though there was plenty of extra space on the USB stick. Tom ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Shared libraries version bump?
Since I have plenty of disk space on the new computer, I was planning to keep the BETA1 partition and install BETA2 to a separate partition. FreeBSD 9.0 BETA1 is the first hard drive OS on the new computer, not counting the nonworking NetBSD installation; I am not upgrading from 8.x. Since I have nothing worth saving on my nonworking installation of NetBSD-current, I can delete those partitions and make a FreeBSD partition for BETA2. I can keep the already existing /home partition. That way, I already have the ports tree, can run 'portsnap fetch update', won't have to redownload the distfiles on those ports that haven't been updated since then. I will have no immediate need for portupgrade or portmaster but will in the near future. I will have the BETA1 to fall back on in the interim before BETA2 installation becomes more self-sufficient, for web browsing including online financial affairs. Tom ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Shared libraries version bump?
From: Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com The bump was done for BETA2, see r225227, done on 2011-08-28. The bump has much less scope since we did the ABI analysis and only bumped the libraries which interfaces changed in incompatible way and which were not yet bumped. See the referenced commit for the libraries list. To be absolutely safe, you indeed need to rebuild all ports. Practically, the damage done by bump is very limited and most people can get away without rebuild if you already tracked HEAD. I would mostly worry about libpcap. Thanks for information. I would not have known where to look for the commits, or I would have found it and not have had to ask this question. I think I'll rebuild all ports, and more, maybe I should make and keep packages in case I can't update to BETA3 in place. For now I will keep the BETA1 installation, use the ports tree from there, and portsnap fetch update instead of installing the ports from BETA2. I will delete and redo the partitions where I have the nonworking installation of NetBSD-current and install FreeBSD 9.0 BETA2 there, but keep the already existing /home partition. I had been daily browsing ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/releases, so I found BETA2 on Sep 2. I didn't even know which emailing list to use for beta releases, after much browsing found freebsd-current to be the best fit. Tom ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Shared libraries version bump?
When FreeBSD 9.0_BETA1 was announced, the announcement included a notice that shared library version would be updated some time prior to BETA2, which would necessitate rebuilding all ports. Has this happened yet? I don't want to rebuild all ports at the wrong time. I notice BETA2 has been released but see no announcement. Readme, hardware notes and release notes say nothing specific to the BETA2 release/snapshot. If the shared libraries version bump has not yet occurred, I would want to update in place, if the installer can do that; otherwise I would install BETA2 to a different partition, keeping the old /home and swap. That way, I would still have BETA1 to fall back on for the built ports, before I would finish rebuilding the ports on BETA2. This is on a new computer, with Western Digital Caviar Green 3 TB hard drive, using GPT, so for now I have plenty of space. I already downloaded and dd'ed the amd64 memstick image for amd64, and have looked at the data thereon. Tom ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
