Re: The ports are really funcional?
Michael Powell nightre...@hotmail.com wrote: I have always suspected that unknowingly utilizing the already out-of-date tree from the initial install is probably what causes most newcomers' problems with ports. My experience is exactly the opposite. The biggest problem I've had with ports came from trying to follow the recommended approach of updating the tree after installing, before trying to build anything. In retrospect, I'm not at all sure why anyone would be surprised at this finding -- or why update it first would be recommended. The ports tree is known to be buildable and self-consistent when packages are built for a release, and that version of the tree is distributed with the release. If something won't build on a freshly-installed -RELEASE, but the build cluster _was_ able to build the package, there pretty much has to be something wrong with the local installation. Updating the ports tree can't possibly fix such a problem, whatever it may be, and just complicates the situation by introducing more variables. My approach is to install using the known-good ports tree from the release, get the system operational, and _then_ consider updating. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: The ports are really funcional?
On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 06:08:42 -0700, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote: My experience is exactly the opposite. The biggest problem I've had with ports came from trying to follow the recommended approach of updating the tree after installing, before trying to build anything. This is a _conditional_ suggestion. For those who follow a -STABLE branch, using a continuously updated ports tree, in combination with updating the OS and the installed applications, might sound more interesting than the opposite approach: Installing and _using_ a -RELEASE (and often only adding the security updates) and working with the frozen ports tree of that particular release. Note the difference of -RELEASE and -STABLE - you'll find similarities in handling the ports tree. There is no clear definition of use _this_ on a server, use _that_ on a desktop; individual updating and using habits are important here. In retrospect, I'm not at all sure why anyone would be surprised at this finding -- or why update it first would be recommended. The ports tree is known to be buildable and self-consistent when packages are built for a release, and that version of the tree is distributed with the release. Correct. Especially for offline operations, this is an approach often recommended. If something won't build on a freshly-installed -RELEASE, but the build cluster _was_ able to build the package, there pretty much has to be something wrong with the local installation. And in that case, exchanging a non-compiling port (for whatever reason) with a binary package from the RELEASE set of archives is a possible way to solve the problem. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: The ports are really funcional?
On Tue, 1 Nov 2011 07:28:18 +0100 Polytropon wrote: On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 06:08:42 -0700, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote: My experience is exactly the opposite. The biggest problem I've had with ports came from trying to follow the recommended approach of updating the tree after installing, before trying to build anything. It depends. If you plan on updating infrequently then sticking with the well tested release tree is sensible. The problem is that there's a lot of pent-up changes that go into the tree immediately after a release. A lot of new user will fall into the trap of doing an initial install from the release tree (usually via packages), and then they pull in months of changes and are faced with a major update. I did that with Gentoo and made a mess of it; and it's the reason I moved on to FreeBSD. This is a _conditional_ suggestion. For those who follow a -STABLE branch, using a continuously updated ports tree, in combination with updating the OS and the installed applications, might sound more interesting than the opposite approach: ... It's not an either or. It perfectly sensible to use a RELENG branch and use up-to-date-ports. Unless you actually need a specific MFC'ed update, like a driver, tracking stable is extra risk and hassle for no significant benefit. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: The ports are really funcional?
I agree, the ports are *amazing*. Even when installing a major component like kde4. If you have your base system set up correctly this very complex task will generally complete flawlessly. For a first-time install you can accept most of the default options when configuring, but it's probably not a good idea to just blindly accept every default. Experiment with the different port management software until you find something which you like. Read the documentation about dealing with common issues, making backups, saving compiler/ installation errors, etc. If you are having many problems with ports which require few dependencies, you may have a non-ports related issue of some kind. My entire system is ports based and I belong more to the user than the hacker class. Good luck! On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 4:05 AM, Polytropon free...@edvax.de wrote: On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 22:36:44 -0400, Alejandro Imass wrote: For very large packages such as the graphics system, open or libre office etc. it's much better to use binary versions via pkg_add. It's a waste of time to compile these very large suites and most of the time you will get the config options wrong, and they take forever to compile. Exceptions: 1) You need language-specific settings. Example: OpenOffice in German. 2) You need others than the default options, e. g. if you want to include or exclude some stuff. Example: OpenOffice without KDE. 3) You need options to be set at compile time that do differ from the default options from which the binary packages are made, or because of artificially shit in your pants legal requirements and restrictions. Example: mplayer with mencoder and all (!) codecs 4) You need to speed up things to make them run on older hardware, and you fight for every optimization. Example: mplayer's RUNTIME_CPU_DETECTION. But this is, I think, a case for 1% of users only. You hardly need to do that. In most cases, the default options are fine, and the binary packages just work. For things you want to tailor and optimize to your needs then use the ports system. FBSD is so cool that it doesn't matter if you install one way or the other and you can use almost all methods interchangeably. A managament tool (such as portmaster or portupgrade) helps to keep an eye on dependencies when using the many possible ways. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org -- joe gain jacob-burckhardt-str. 16 78464 konstanz germany +49 (0)7531 60389 (...otherwise in ???) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: The ports are really funcional?
then, as the system must be configured?, I thought as I was was perfect. I have a laptop with intel core i5. PS: I think that occupying FreeBSD or OpenBSD, and you should consider ;) Zantgo El 31-10-2011, a las 6:12, Joe Gain joe.g...@gmail.com escribió: I agree, the ports are *amazing*. Even when installing a major component like kde4. If you have your base system set up correctly this very complex task will generally complete flawlessly. For a first-time install you can accept most of the default options when configuring, but it's probably not a good idea to just blindly accept every default. Experiment with the different port management software until you find something which you like. Read the documentation about dealing with common issues, making backups, saving compiler/ installation errors, etc. If you are having many problems with ports which require few dependencies, you may have a non-ports related issue of some kind. My entire system is ports based and I belong more to the user than the hacker class. Good luck! On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 4:05 AM, Polytropon free...@edvax.de wrote: On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 22:36:44 -0400, Alejandro Imass wrote: For very large packages such as the graphics system, open or libre office etc. it's much better to use binary versions via pkg_add. It's a waste of time to compile these very large suites and most of the time you will get the config options wrong, and they take forever to compile. Exceptions: 1) You need language-specific settings. Example: OpenOffice in German. 2) You need others than the default options, e. g. if you want to include or exclude some stuff. Example: OpenOffice without KDE. 3) You need options to be set at compile time that do differ from the default options from which the binary packages are made, or because of artificially shit in your pants legal requirements and restrictions. Example: mplayer with mencoder and all (!) codecs 4) You need to speed up things to make them run on older hardware, and you fight for every optimization. Example: mplayer's RUNTIME_CPU_DETECTION. But this is, I think, a case for 1% of users only. You hardly need to do that. In most cases, the default options are fine, and the binary packages just work. For things you want to tailor and optimize to your needs then use the ports system. FBSD is so cool that it doesn't matter if you install one way or the other and you can use almost all methods interchangeably. A managament tool (such as portmaster or portupgrade) helps to keep an eye on dependencies when using the many possible ways. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org -- joe gain jacob-burckhardt-str. 16 78464 konstanz germany +49 (0)7531 60389 (...otherwise in ???) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: The ports are really funcional?
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 11:45:44 -0300, Zantgo wrote: then, as the system must be configured?, I thought as I was was perfect. I have a laptop with intel core i5. The ports should work without any further configuration change, no matter if you've installed via Internet or from an installation media. If you encounter problems, please post informative text to this list, i. e. the command you've executed and the relevant error messages, and maybe specific things you've changed, e. g. global CFLAGS and other things one should not do. :-) -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: The ports are really funcional?
Polytropon wrote: On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 11:45:44 -0300, Zantgo wrote: then, as the system must be configured?, I thought as I was was perfect. I have a laptop with intel core i5. The ports should work without any further configuration change, no matter if you've installed via Internet or from an installation media. If you encounter problems, please post informative text to this list, i. e. the command you've executed and the relevant error messages, and maybe specific things you've changed, e. g. global CFLAGS and other things one should not do. :-) We should probably try and discover if he had learned how to update the ports tree as well. Many new users can easily get the ports tree installed by simply agreeing to the suggestion in sysinstall, but do not yet know it is best to update it first prior to installing software. I have always suspected that unknowingly utilizing the already out-of-date tree from the initial install is probably what causes most newcomers' problems with ports. My practice is to only do a basic install plus ports tree, with no third party application packages. Then update ports tree and begin installing apps. I learned this the hard way from experience over 11 years ago. When I first started with FreeBSD (circa 4.0.0) I would have some packages installed and then try using the ports system, and stuff would break. Learning to cvsup the ports tree is what took care of a lot of that. Then I learned portupgrade and things got even better again. But I recall the jumbled mish- mash of brokenness I had early on as a neophyte, and what the OP is describing sounds a lot like my early experience. Learning to properly admin the system made all of that a thing of the distant past. -Mike ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
The ports are really funcional?
What happens is that I tried to install things on the ports, but almost no one serves me, I've only been able to install firefox, I tried also install KDE, GNOME and KFCE, but I have been many errors, commonly solocionables, for example I had to modify REFRESH to true, but also to get out other errors, commonly have a solution, but is a great problem to have to spend all his time fixing bugs. Please tell me if it is natural to every time I download large modifying ports so, if so, then why say functional? Zantgo___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: The ports are really funcional?
On Sun, 30 Oct 2011, Zantgo wrote: What happens is that I tried to install things on the ports, but almost no one serves me, I've only been able to install firefox, I tried also install KDE, GNOME and KFCE, but I have been many errors, commonly solocionables, for example I had to modify REFRESH to true, but also to get out other errors, commonly have a solution, but is a great problem to have to spend all his time fixing bugs. Please tell me if it is natural to every time I download large modifying ports so, if so, then why say functional? Yes, ports work well. From the description, it's difficult to tell what is causing the problem. Please supply additional information, like what version of FreeBSD and the exact output of one of the errors (script(1) is useful for that). Also see the section in the Handbook about packages and ports: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/ports.html Translations of the Handbook can be found at ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/doc/ in the books subdirectory. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: The ports are really funcional?
El 30-10-2011, a las 19:55, Warren Block wbl...@wonkity.com escribió: On Sun, 30 Oct 2011, Zantgo wrote: What happens is that I tried to install things on the ports, but almost no one serves me, I've only been able to install firefox, I tried also install KDE, GNOME and KFCE, but I have been many errors, commonly solocionables, for example I had to modify REFRESH to true, but also to get out other errors, commonly have a solution, but is a great problem to have to spend all his time fixing bugs. Please tell me if it is natural to every time I download large modifying ports so, if so, then why say functional? Yes, ports work well. From the description, it's difficult to tell what is causing the problem. Please supply additional information, like what version of FreeBSD and the exact output of one of the errors (script(1) is useful for that). Also see the section in the Handbook about packages and ports: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/ports.html Translations of the Handbook can be found at ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/doc/ in the books subdirectory. the problem is not the problem, since most are solving the problem is that there are many errors and problems, then as I say it is stable and functional?___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: The ports are really funcional?
On Sun, 30 Oct 2011, Zantgo wrote: El 30-10-2011, a las 19:55, Warren Block wbl...@wonkity.com escribi?: On Sun, 30 Oct 2011, Zantgo wrote: What happens is that I tried to install things on the ports, but almost no one serves me, I've only been able to install firefox, I tried also install KDE, GNOME and KFCE, but I have been many errors, commonly solocionables, for example I had to modify REFRESH to true, but also to get out other errors, commonly have a solution, but is a great problem to have to spend all his time fixing bugs. Please tell me if it is natural to every time I download large modifying ports so, if so, then why say functional? Yes, ports work well. From the description, it's difficult to tell what is causing the problem. Please supply additional information, like what version of FreeBSD and the exact output of one of the errors (script(1) is useful for that). Also see the section in the Handbook about packages and ports: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/ports.html Translations of the Handbook can be found at ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/doc/ in the books subdirectory. the problem is not the problem, since most are solving the problem is that there are many errors and problems, then as I say it is stable and functional? The ports system is stable and functional for others, including me, so what needs to be figured out is the source of problems on your system. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: The ports are really funcional?
u . . . this person has been doing similar hold-my-hand-I-do-not-want-to-take-the-time kinda thing on the oBSD lists recently. On 10/30/11, Zantgo zan...@gmail.com wrote: El 30-10-2011, a las 19:55, Warren Block wbl...@wonkity.com escribió: On Sun, 30 Oct 2011, Zantgo wrote: What happens is that I tried to install things on the ports, but almost no one serves me, I've only been able to install firefox, I tried also install KDE, GNOME and KFCE, but I have been many errors, commonly solocionables, for example I had to modify REFRESH to true, but also to get out other errors, commonly have a solution, but is a great problem to have to spend all his time fixing bugs. Please tell me if it is natural to every time I download large modifying ports so, if so, then why say functional? Yes, ports work well. From the description, it's difficult to tell what is causing the problem. Please supply additional information, like what version of FreeBSD and the exact output of one of the errors (script(1) is useful for that). Also see the section in the Handbook about packages and ports: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/ports.html Translations of the Handbook can be found at ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/doc/ in the books subdirectory. the problem is not the problem, since most are solving the problem is that there are many errors and problems, then as I say it is stable and functional?___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: The ports are really funcional?
On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 18:19:16 -0300, Zantgo wrote: What happens is that I tried to install things on the ports, but almost no one serves me, I've only been able to install firefox, I tried also install KDE, GNOME and KFCE, but I have been many errors, commonly solocionables, for example I had to modify REFRESH to true, but also to get out other errors, commonly have a solution, but is a great problem to have to spend all his time fixing bugs. Please tell me if it is natural to every time I download large modifying ports so, if so, then why say functional? For better diagnostics, please provide the commands you've run as well as the (last parts containing the errors) of the output. You did already get good suggestions on what to read about how to properly use the ports infrastructure. You should not need to define any variables (except those you intendedly want to change according to your needs for program modification). I'm not familiar with $REFRESH, what does this do? Maybe using precompiled packages (via pkg_add -r name) would be a better solution here? Oh, and don't miss to read man ports, it's very informative! Regarding the ports collection's functionality: It's VERY functional and works nearly flawlessly (until, of course, a port is broken, but this happens only a very few times). Maybe you should search things like working Internet connection and proper usage on your side. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: The ports are really funcional?
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Zantgo zan...@gmail.com wrote: What happens is that I tried to install things on the ports, but almost no one serves me, I've only been able to install firefox, I tried also install KDE, GNOME and KFCE, but I have been many errors, commonly solocionables, for example I had to modify REFRESH to true, but also to get out other errors, commonly have a solution, but is a great problem to have to spend all his time fixing bugs. Please tell me if it is natural to every time I download large modifying ports so, if so, then why say functional? I've used FBSD since 6.2 and ports are almost always flawless. Many times it's the combination of configuration options (in make config) that may cause problems. For very large packages such as the graphics system, open or libre office etc. it's much better to use binary versions via pkg_add. It's a waste of time to compile these very large suites and most of the time you will get the config options wrong, and they take forever to compile. For things you want to tailor and optimize to your needs then use the ports system. FBSD is so cool that it doesn't matter if you install one way or the other and you can use almost all methods interchangeably. -- Alejandro Imass ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: The ports are really funcional?
On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 22:36:44 -0400, Alejandro Imass wrote: For very large packages such as the graphics system, open or libre office etc. it's much better to use binary versions via pkg_add. It's a waste of time to compile these very large suites and most of the time you will get the config options wrong, and they take forever to compile. Exceptions: 1) You need language-specific settings. Example: OpenOffice in German. 2) You need others than the default options, e. g. if you want to include or exclude some stuff. Example: OpenOffice without KDE. 3) You need options to be set at compile time that do differ from the default options from which the binary packages are made, or because of artificially shit in your pants legal requirements and restrictions. Example: mplayer with mencoder and all (!) codecs 4) You need to speed up things to make them run on older hardware, and you fight for every optimization. Example: mplayer's RUNTIME_CPU_DETECTION. But this is, I think, a case for 1% of users only. You hardly need to do that. In most cases, the default options are fine, and the binary packages just work. For things you want to tailor and optimize to your needs then use the ports system. FBSD is so cool that it doesn't matter if you install one way or the other and you can use almost all methods interchangeably. A managament tool (such as portmaster or portupgrade) helps to keep an eye on dependencies when using the many possible ways. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
