Denis Troshin wrote this message on Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 16:58 +0700:
Sorry for all the responses that don't directly answer your question,
but you did ask it in a rather tactless way by saying it's a mess w/o
understanding the reasoning behind it.
Almost every package I install requires a
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 12:38:34PM -0700, Greg Shenaut wrote:
Has it ever been suggested to create one or more dependencies
ports (or more to the point, packages)? I think it might be pretty
useful to have something like that so that all of the prerequisites
can be installed at once.
Maybe I'm
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 12:38:34PM -0700, Greg Shenaut wrote:
Has it ever been suggested to create one or more dependencies
ports (or more to the point, packages)? I think it might be pretty
useful to have something like that so that all of the prerequisites
can be installed at once.
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 01:07:34PM +0200, Sten Daniel S?rsdal wrote:
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 12:38:34PM -0700, Greg Shenaut wrote:
Has it ever been suggested to create one or more dependencies
ports (or more to the point, packages)? I think it might be pretty
useful to have something
In a message written on Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 01:07:34PM +0200, Sten Daniel S?rsdal
wrote:
all dependencies are as packages (in my case, i have several
light-weight servers/routers that have no gcc/make capabilities).
On things without gcc/make perhaps using pkg_add with binary packages
would
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 01:07:34PM +0200, Sten Daniel S?rsdal wrote:
Otherwise one needs to manually track dependencies (not a terribly
difficult job) and make those as packages, and keep doing this until
all dependencies are as packages (in my case, i have several
light-weight
Peter Jeremy wrote:
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 12:38:34PM -0700, Greg Shenaut wrote:
Has it ever been suggested to create one or more dependencies
ports (or more to the point, packages)? I think it might be pretty
useful to have something like that so that all of the prerequisites
can be installed
In the last episode (Sep 02), Marcin Dalecki said:
What I hate somehow is the proliferation of scripting plugin
interfaces which are optional in the src bunch but are not opt-in
switches in the actual packages. One example can be vim sucking in
perl ruby python and what a not. Esp. annoying is
On Tuesday 02 September 2003 04:07, Sten Daniel Sørsdal wrote:
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 12:38:34PM -0700, Greg Shenaut wrote:
Has it ever been suggested to create one or more dependencies
ports (or more to the point, packages)? I think it might be
pretty useful to have something like that
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 11:53:51AM -0700, Wes Peters wrote:
portinstall -r -p pkgname will build a package for pkgname and all of
it's dependencies.
So will 'make package-recursive', as already suggested :-)
Kris
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
First off, let me say that FreeBSD is one of the cleanest systems out
there as the developers try to remove bigger packages from the base
system instead of adding more bloat every release. One example would be
the removal of perl from the base distribution in 5.x.
As for perl and the other
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 04:58:43PM +0700, Denis Troshin wrote:
Almost every package I install requires a few other packages. This
'idea of using dependent packages' turns FreeBSD (and other
unix-systems) to an ugly monster.
What you propose?
For example, I don't need Perl or
On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 10:58, Denis Troshin wrote:
Almost every package I install requires a few other packages. This
'idea of using dependent packages' turns FreeBSD (and other
unix-systems) to an ugly monster.
For example, I don't need Perl or Python but a few packages I
+--- On Monday, September 01, 2003 10:42,
| Mario Freitas proclaimed:
|
| PS: Do you really need to compare windows HUGE UGLY and sluggish
| kernel with FreeBSD's?
| PS2:The monster has got a name, and it's not really a monster, is a
| daemon, it's Chuck ehehe
|
It isn't Chuck, though this myth
On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 15:23, Michael W. Oliver wrote:
+--- On Monday, September 01, 2003 10:42,
| Mario Freitas proclaimed:
|
| PS: Do you really need to compare windows HUGE UGLY and sluggish
| kernel with FreeBSD's?
| PS2:The monster has got a name, and it's not really a monster, is a
|
In nuntio [EMAIL PROTECTED], Chris Dillon divulgat:
I break as many depedencies as I possibly can out of a particular
piece of software into separate distribution packages with their own
dependency chains. The FreeBSD ports/packages system just happens to
already do this to a high degree, because
Greg Shenaut wrote:
In nuntio [EMAIL PROTECTED], Chris Dillon divulgat:
I break as many depedencies as I possibly can out of a particular
piece of software into separate distribution packages with their own
dependency chains. The FreeBSD ports/packages system just happens to
already do this to a
Has it ever been suggested to create one or more dependencies
ports (or more to the point, packages)? I think it might be pretty
useful to have something like that so that all of the prerequisites
can be installed at once.
/usr/ports/misc/instant-workstation ?
Well, in theory:
Almost every package I install requires a few other packages. This
'idea of using dependent packages' turns FreeBSD (and other
unix-systems) to an ugly monster.
For example, I don't need Perl or Python but a few packages I install
require them.
Does exist a programming under unix
On 16:58 Mon 01 Sep , Denis Troshin wrote:
P.S. Under Windows it is possible to write not bad applications which
depend just on libraries (KERNEL32, USER32, GDI32). And these libs
exist on every base system!!!
Is it possible in unix?
Before I thought that unix programs very
In the last episode (Sep 01), Denis Troshin said:
Almost every package I install requires a few other packages.
This 'idea of using dependent packages' turns FreeBSD (and other
unix-systems) to an ugly monster.
For example, I don't need Perl or Python but a few packages I
install
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, Denis Troshin wrote:
Almost every package I install requires a few other packages. This
'idea of using dependent packages' turns FreeBSD (and other
unix-systems) to an ugly monster.
At least the dependencies are taken care of for you automatically in
FreeBSD, unlike some
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, Denis Troshin wrote:
Almost every package I install requires a few other packages. This 'idea
of using dependent packages' turns FreeBSD (and other unix-systems) to
an ugly monster.
For example, I don't need Perl or Python but a few packages I install
require them.
Denis Troshin wrote:
Almost every package I install requires a few other packages. This
'idea of using dependent packages' turns FreeBSD (and other
unix-systems) to an ugly monster.
You're right. The authors of the offending software packages
should not do that. It's going to
24 matches
Mail list logo
