Re: defining dependencies for ports
On Monday 17 July 2006 05:00, mike wrote: So I'm building Eclipse, and one of the things it wants to include is python . Seems odd for my java ide to need python, so I look it up on the web tool that shows all the dependencies for a port (which is a fantastic tool, by the way). And python is included because glade is included, and glade seems to be a top-level dependency. However, nowhere can I find in the Makefile any reference to Glade, nor to the many other top-level dependencies. The more complex dependencies are handled by the ports system itself. Probably the dependency on glade comes in through its dependencies on bits of Gnome. Try: WITHOUT_GNOMEVFS=yes How do I find out these things and once I find them, how do I change them so I don't include? (Mozilla is another example, but this one I actually see in the Makefile for the Eclipse port. However, make config and make configure don't ask me if I want mozilla -- I use firefox). WITH_MOZILLA=firefox ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: defining dependencies for ports
- Original Message From: Gerard Seibert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Cc: mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 11:33:56 AM Subject: Re: defining dependencies for ports mike wrote: Alex Zbyslaw wrote: Owen G wrote: You are aware that there exists 1. ports = source = must be compiled = make install (as above) 2. packages = executable packages = precompiled = pkgadd -r . . . Whilst your description of ports and packages is correct... So unless you're running a custom kernel, there's no advantage of ports over packages. ...this is not. Ports are useful : 1) For any package with multiple compile-time options (e.g. apache) where *you* want to choose those options rather than be stuck with the ones the *package* was compiled with (c.f. Linux rpms) 2) If you want to be as up-to-date as possible - packages take time to pre-compile and can lag the ports tree a little 3) If require the source code (for maintaining local patches; because another port or some other local software needs it) I'm not aware that a custom kernel has any relevance whatsoever. Perhaps you meant unless you have used some cpu-specific compile flag in make.conf but I don't think even that would make a difference. Also, ports and packages are managed much more easily with a tool like portupgrade or portmanager. I prefer the former because it has never core-dumped on me, and feels more robust and well maintained. If you have multiple machines you keep in sync, then portupgrade -p or pkg_create -b can be used to create local packages with *your* compile-time options that other local machines can use. --Alex Thanks for the responses. This is /exactly/ why I'm using ports instead of packages, because I want to have things compiled with my options. However, the reason for my original post was that I'm having a hard time customizing this, for java/Eclipse specifically. I try make config but it doesn't show anything. So how do I go about cutting out or changing some of the dependencies that I don't want if there are no OPTIONS defined? And I can't find where these dependencies are even defined in this case. I grep everything in /usr/ports/java/eclipse and don't see references to most of the dependencies. Where are they defined if not in the BUILD_DEPENDS, etc. variables of the Makefile? thanks again. I'm learning a lot in this process. Check out the java/eclipse Makefile. It has build options in it that are configurable. You can do that either by entering them on the command line, or by placing them in the /etc/make.conf file like this: # java/eclipse section .if $(.CURDIR:M*/java/eclipse) # Your options are placed here. # I usually place them one per line for easier reading .endif I like the /etc/make.conf option myself since I do not have to remember to enter the options if I update the port. Also, both portupgrade and portmanager will honor any instructions in the /etc/make.conf file. Unlike Mike, I prefer 'portmanager' since it seems to do a more through update of a ports dependencies, etc., but that is just my opinion. Ciao -- Gerard Seibert [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sorry, I wonder if I could ask one more clarification about these dependencies without being too annoying. Following are the listed dependencies for the java/eclipse package. But all of these are not in the Makefile. How does the ports system come up with the other dependencies? For example, this tree shows devel/ORBit2 as a direct dependent of java/eclipse. How did it find that? I'm not trying to pick apart the dependencies of this package, I would just like to understand how this whole ports thing works. From what I remember of trying Gentoo, I had much more control over how the package got built, and I'm curious if I can have that same control here. Thanks for all who have read and responded. java/eclipse |--- accessibility/atk | |--- devel/gettext | | |--- converters/libiconv | | |--- devel/libtool15 | |--- devel/glib20 | | |--- devel/gmake | | |--- devel/pkg-config | | |--- lang/perl5.8 | |--- devel/libtool15 | |--- devel/pkg-config |--- archivers/unzip |--- archivers/zip |--- audio/esound | |--- audio/libaudiofile |--- devel/ORBit2 | |--- devel/libIDL | | |--- devel/bison | | | |--- devel/m4 | |--- devel/popt |--- devel/apache-ant | |--- java/diablo-jdk15 | | |--- java/javavmwrapper | | |--- x11/xorg-libraries | | | |--- devel/imake-6 | | | |--- graphics/libdrm | | | |--- print/freetype2 | | | |--- x11-fonts/fontconfig
Re: defining dependencies for ports
On Wednesday 19 July 2006 14:52, mh983 wrote: How does the ports system come up with the other dependencies? For example, this tree shows devel/ORBit2 as a direct dependent of java/eclipse. How did it find that? I already answered this in the main thread - this one is a second thread created when Owen G answered a list digest (I do wish people wouln't do that). I was only guessing at the time, but my guess looks right: $ cd /ports/java/eclipse make run-depends-list /usr/ports/accessibility/atk /usr/ports/audio/esound /usr/ports/devel/ORBit2 /usr/ports/devel/desktop-file-utils /usr/ports/devel/gconf2 /usr/ports/devel/glib20 /usr/ports/devel/gnome-vfs /usr/ports/devel/libIDL /usr/ports/devel/libbonobo /usr/ports/devel/libglade2 /usr/ports/devel/pkg-config /usr/ports/graphics/cairo /usr/ports/graphics/libart_lgpl /usr/ports/graphics/libgnomecanvas /usr/ports/java/jdk14 /usr/ports/misc/gnome-mime-data /usr/ports/misc/gnomehier /usr/ports/net/linc /usr/ports/textproc/libxml2 /usr/ports/textproc/libxslt /usr/ports/x11-toolkits/gtk20 /usr/ports/x11-toolkits/libbonoboui /usr/ports/x11-toolkits/libgnomeui /usr/ports/x11-toolkits/pango /usr/ports/x11/libgnome $ export WITHOUT_GNOMEVFS=yes ; make run-depends-list /usr/ports/accessibility/atk /usr/ports/devel/desktop-file-utils /usr/ports/devel/glib20 /usr/ports/devel/pkg-config /usr/ports/graphics/cairo /usr/ports/java/jdk14 /usr/ports/x11-toolkits/gtk20 /usr/ports/x11-toolkits/pango I'm not trying to pick apart the dependencies of this package, I would just like to understand how this whole ports thing works. From what I remember of trying Gentoo, I had much more control over how the package got built, I think the problem is that as time goes by more and more GTK ports are becoming increasingly Gnomified. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: defining dependencies for ports
RW wrote: I already answered this in the main thread - this one is a second thread created when Owen G answered a list digest (I do wish people wouln't do that). I was only guessing at the time, but my guess looks right: ... I think the problem is that as time goes by more and more GTK ports are becoming increasingly Gnomified. Terribly sorry about missing your other post. I use digest mode too, but as of today I stopped because it's evil. Thanks for the response. I think the output from that webbased dependency list is misleading as many of those dependencies are gone once you exclude gnome, but the output makes it look like they are direct dependents of eclipse. Thanks for taking the time to explain this. Hope my response ends up on the right thread. mike ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
defining dependencies for ports
Message: 5 Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 23:00:40 -0500 From: mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: defining dependencies for ports To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Hello. I'm brand new to FreeBSD. I'm mostly enjoying it so far. I'm playing with installing the Eclipse IDE port right now. I say playing with because I started to install it and saw the list of dependencies and shuddered. I like to keep my system relatively clean and tend to start a new install of Linux (and now BSD) as bare bones and add only what I need. So I'm building Eclipse, and one of the things it wants to include is python . Seems odd for my java ide to need python, so I look it up on the web tool that shows all the dependencies for a port (which is a fantastic tool, by the way). And python is included because glade is included, and glade seems to be a top-level dependency. However, nowhere can I find in the Makefile any reference to Glade, nor to the many other top-level dependencies. How do I find out these things and once I find them, how do I change them so I don't include? (Mozilla is another example, but this one I actually see in the Makefile for the Eclipse port. However, make config and make configure don't ask me if I want mozilla -- I use firefox). This applies generally. I installed other ports too that had odd dependencies (like including perl because of some helper scripts that aren't even required to be run). Is there a command I'm missing that let's me configure these things? On a side note, is the name pretty-print-build-depends-list designed to keep me from running the command? ;-) And after typing all that, the output wasn't really even pretty. thanks for any tips. Sorry if this is a dumb question, I've been using FreeBSD only two days now. Currently I run slackware. mike Mike, Have a look at this link and see how your ports don't have to be difficult: http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2003/08/28/FreeBSD_Basics.html Look for other stuff Dru's written about as well - good stuff. Install the port you want and all the dependancies will sort themselves out: e.g. # cd /usr/ports//www/firefox/ # make install clean Sorted! You are aware that there exists 1. ports = source = must be compiled = make install (as above) 2. packages = executable packages = precompiled = pkgadd -r . . . So unless you're running a custom kernel, there's no advantage of ports over packages. Good luck, Owen ___ To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: defining dependencies for ports
Owen G wrote: You are aware that there exists 1. ports = source = must be compiled = make install (as above) 2. packages = executable packages = precompiled = pkgadd -r . . . Whilst your description of ports and packages is correct... So unless you're running a custom kernel, there's no advantage of ports over packages. ...this is not. Ports are useful : 1) For any package with multiple compile-time options (e.g. apache) where *you* want to choose those options rather than be stuck with the ones the *package* was compiled with (c.f. Linux rpms) 2) If you want to be as up-to-date as possible - packages take time to pre-compile and can lag the ports tree a little 3) If require the source code (for maintaining local patches; because another port or some other local software needs it) I'm not aware that a custom kernel has any relevance whatsoever. Perhaps you meant unless you have used some cpu-specific compile flag in make.conf but I don't think even that would make a difference. Also, ports and packages are managed much more easily with a tool like portupgrade or portmanager. I prefer the former because it has never core-dumped on me, and feels more robust and well maintained. If you have multiple machines you keep in sync, then portupgrade -p or pkg_create -b can be used to create local packages with *your* compile-time options that other local machines can use. --Alex ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: defining dependencies for ports
Alex Zbyslaw wrote: Owen G wrote: You are aware that there exists 1. ports = source = must be compiled = make install (as above) 2. packages = executable packages = precompiled = pkgadd -r . . . Whilst your description of ports and packages is correct... So unless you're running a custom kernel, there's no advantage of ports over packages. ...this is not. Ports are useful : 1) For any package with multiple compile-time options (e.g. apache) where *you* want to choose those options rather than be stuck with the ones the *package* was compiled with (c.f. Linux rpms) 2) If you want to be as up-to-date as possible - packages take time to pre-compile and can lag the ports tree a little 3) If require the source code (for maintaining local patches; because another port or some other local software needs it) I'm not aware that a custom kernel has any relevance whatsoever. Perhaps you meant unless you have used some cpu-specific compile flag in make.conf but I don't think even that would make a difference. Also, ports and packages are managed much more easily with a tool like portupgrade or portmanager. I prefer the former because it has never core-dumped on me, and feels more robust and well maintained. If you have multiple machines you keep in sync, then portupgrade -p or pkg_create -b can be used to create local packages with *your* compile-time options that other local machines can use. --Alex Thanks for the responses. This is /exactly/ why I'm using ports instead of packages, because I want to have things compiled with my options. However, the reason for my original post was that I'm having a hard time customizing this, for java/Eclipse specifically. I try make config but it doesn't show anything. So how do I go about cutting out or changing some of the dependencies that I don't want if there are no OPTIONS defined? And I can't find where these dependencies are even defined in this case. I grep everything in /usr/ports/java/eclipse and don't see references to most of the dependencies. Where are they defined if not in the BUILD_DEPENDS, etc. variables of the Makefile? thanks again. I'm learning a lot in this process. mike ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: defining dependencies for ports
mike wrote:
Thanks for the responses. This is /exactly/ why I'm using ports
instead of packages, because I want to have things compiled with my
options. However, the reason for my original post was that I'm having
a hard time customizing this, for java/Eclipse specifically. I try
make config but it doesn't show anything. So how do I go about
cutting out or changing some of the dependencies that I don't want if
there are no OPTIONS defined?
And I can't find where these dependencies are even defined in this
case. I grep everything in /usr/ports/java/eclipse and don't see
references to most of the dependencies. Where are they defined if not
in the BUILD_DEPENDS, etc. variables of the Makefile?
What options you get for any port do depend on what the maintainer chose
to put in. If there is some option that eclipse itself has, but the
port does not, then contacting the maintainer is where I might start.
Looking thought the eclipse Makefile you see things like:
.if defined(WITH_MOTIF)
or
.if !defined(WITHOUT_MOZILLA)
which tell you what is going to be looked for when the port is
compiled. Is that what you meant by dependencies?
So if using plain make you say something like make WITH_MOTIF=1 or
make WITHOUT_MOZILLA=1.
Using portupgrade, you can add these to the MAKE_ARGS for java/eclipse
in pkgtools.conf and have them used automatically every time you recompile.
Or there is
BUILD_DEPENDS= ant:${PORTSDIR}/devel/apache-ant \
zip:${PORTSDIR}/archivers/zip
but usually they are not optional for a reason!
What, specifically, were you trying to do?
Not every port supports make config unfortunately. I haven't done
enough port hacking to know how easy it is to add this to any port, but
can't believe it's that hard - of course, hard depends on your
experience! Comparing to a port which *does* support make config
(mozilla, samba3, portupgrade) may help you do it for yourself; the
Porters Handbook on the website may also have helpful info.
hth,
--Alex
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: defining dependencies for ports
- Original Message
From: Alex Zbyslaw [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: mike [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 11:19:15 AM
Subject: Re: defining dependencies for ports
mike wrote:
Thanks for the responses. This is /exactly/ why I'm using ports
instead of packages, because I want to have things compiled with my
options. However, the reason for my original post was that I'm having
a hard time customizing this, for java/Eclipse specifically. I try
make config but it doesn't show anything. So how do I go about
cutting out or changing some of the dependencies that I don't want if
there are no OPTIONS defined?
And I can't find where these dependencies are even defined in this
case. I grep everything in /usr/ports/java/eclipse and don't see
references to most of the dependencies. Where are they defined if not
in the BUILD_DEPENDS, etc. variables of the Makefile?
What options you get for any port do depend on what the maintainer chose
to put in. If there is some option that eclipse itself has, but the
port does not, then contacting the maintainer is where I might start.
Looking thought the eclipse Makefile you see things like:
.if defined(WITH_MOTIF)
or
.if !defined(WITHOUT_MOZILLA)
which tell you what is going to be looked for when the port is
compiled. Is that what you meant by dependencies?
So if using plain make you say something like make WITH_MOTIF=1 or
make WITHOUT_MOZILLA=1.
Using portupgrade, you can add these to the MAKE_ARGS for java/eclipse
in pkgtools.conf and have them used automatically every time you recompile.
Or there is
BUILD_DEPENDS= ant:${PORTSDIR}/devel/apache-ant \
zip:${PORTSDIR}/archivers/zip
but usually they are not optional for a reason!
What, specifically, were you trying to do?
Not every port supports make config unfortunately. I haven't done
enough port hacking to know how easy it is to add this to any port, but
can't believe it's that hard - of course, hard depends on your
experience! Comparing to a port which *does* support make config
(mozilla, samba3, portupgrade) may help you do it for yourself; the
Porters Handbook on the website may also have helpful info.
hth,
--Alex
Yes, that helps. I did find the zip and ant dependencies. When I had looked
at the dependency tree on the web, there were a lot of others, such as glade
which then requires python. I didn't want glade or python, so I was kind of
curious where this dependency was listed if not explicit in the Makefile. I
guess my question was more just in general than specifically for the Eclipse
package. From what you said, it sounds like it all just depends on how the
port was written by the owner, if things are considered an option you can
change or not. Thanks for taking the time to actually go and look at the
Makefile for this, that was above and beyond.
mike
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: defining dependencies for ports
mike wrote: Alex Zbyslaw wrote: Owen G wrote: You are aware that there exists 1. ports = source = must be compiled = make install (as above) 2. packages = executable packages = precompiled = pkgadd -r . . . Whilst your description of ports and packages is correct... So unless you're running a custom kernel, there's no advantage of ports over packages. ...this is not. Ports are useful : 1) For any package with multiple compile-time options (e.g. apache) where *you* want to choose those options rather than be stuck with the ones the *package* was compiled with (c.f. Linux rpms) 2) If you want to be as up-to-date as possible - packages take time to pre-compile and can lag the ports tree a little 3) If require the source code (for maintaining local patches; because another port or some other local software needs it) I'm not aware that a custom kernel has any relevance whatsoever. Perhaps you meant unless you have used some cpu-specific compile flag in make.conf but I don't think even that would make a difference. Also, ports and packages are managed much more easily with a tool like portupgrade or portmanager. I prefer the former because it has never core-dumped on me, and feels more robust and well maintained. If you have multiple machines you keep in sync, then portupgrade -p or pkg_create -b can be used to create local packages with *your* compile-time options that other local machines can use. --Alex Thanks for the responses. This is /exactly/ why I'm using ports instead of packages, because I want to have things compiled with my options. However, the reason for my original post was that I'm having a hard time customizing this, for java/Eclipse specifically. I try make config but it doesn't show anything. So how do I go about cutting out or changing some of the dependencies that I don't want if there are no OPTIONS defined? And I can't find where these dependencies are even defined in this case. I grep everything in /usr/ports/java/eclipse and don't see references to most of the dependencies. Where are they defined if not in the BUILD_DEPENDS, etc. variables of the Makefile? thanks again. I'm learning a lot in this process. Check out the java/eclipse Makefile. It has build options in it that are configurable. You can do that either by entering them on the command line, or by placing them in the /etc/make.conf file like this: # java/eclipse section .if $(.CURDIR:M*/java/eclipse) # Your options are placed here. # I usually place them one per line for easier reading .endif I like the /etc/make.conf option myself since I do not have to remember to enter the options if I update the port. Also, both portupgrade and portmanager will honor any instructions in the /etc/make.conf file. Unlike Mike, I prefer 'portmanager' since it seems to do a more through update of a ports dependencies, etc., but that is just my opinion. Ciao -- Gerard Seibert [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
defining dependencies for ports
Hello. I'm brand new to FreeBSD. I'm mostly enjoying it so far. I'm playing with installing the Eclipse IDE port right now. I say playing with because I started to install it and saw the list of dependencies and shuddered. I like to keep my system relatively clean and tend to start a new install of Linux (and now BSD) as bare bones and add only what I need. So I'm building Eclipse, and one of the things it wants to include is python . Seems odd for my java ide to need python, so I look it up on the web tool that shows all the dependencies for a port (which is a fantastic tool, by the way). And python is included because glade is included, and glade seems to be a top-level dependency. However, nowhere can I find in the Makefile any reference to Glade, nor to the many other top-level dependencies. How do I find out these things and once I find them, how do I change them so I don't include? (Mozilla is another example, but this one I actually see in the Makefile for the Eclipse port. However, make config and make configure don't ask me if I want mozilla -- I use firefox). This applies generally. I installed other ports too that had odd dependencies (like including perl because of some helper scripts that aren't even required to be run). Is there a command I'm missing that let's me configure these things? On a side note, is the name pretty-print-build-depends-list designed to keep me from running the command? ;-) And after typing all that, the output wasn't really even pretty. thanks for any tips. Sorry if this is a dumb question, I've been using FreeBSD only two days now. Currently I run slackware. mike ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: defining dependencies for ports
On 7/17/06, mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello. I'm brand new to FreeBSD. I'm mostly enjoying it so far. I'm playing with installing the Eclipse IDE port right now. I say playing with because I started to install it and saw the list of dependencies and shuddered. I like to keep my system relatively clean and tend to start a new install of Linux (and now BSD) as bare bones and add only what I need. We're usually focused on making sure things work instead of keeping dependencies to a minimum. FreeBSD is not Windows (or some flavors of Linux) where you're afraid of installing any software because it will never really uninstall. Here we've got most things very clean and automated. So just go ahead and take it easy about all the dependencies. You're not installing Eclipse on an embedded system with 4Mb flash memory, are you. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
