From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jun 28 14:27:05 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DB6737B401 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 14:27:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fed1mtao01.cox.net (fed1mtao01.cox.net [68.6.19.244]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A25E43FF2 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 14:27:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from chive@cox.net) Received: from anoat.phoenix.net ([68.98.91.5]) by fed1mtao01.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP id <20030628212700.IZNB24939.fed1mtao01.cox.net@anoat.phoenix.net> for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 17:27:00 -0400 Received: from anoat.phoenix.net (chive@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by anoat.phoenix.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h5SLR2xN081511 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 14:27:02 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from chive@anoat.phoenix.net) Received: (from chive@localhost) by anoat.phoenix.net (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h5SLR21o081510 for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 14:27:02 -0700 (MST) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 14:27:02 -0700 From: Nicolas Galler To: Free BSD List Message-ID: <20030628212702.GA81342@anoat.phoenix> Mail-Followup-To: Free BSD List References: <3EFDE51A.30907@potentialtech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.0 required=5.0 tests=EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES, REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,USER_AGENT_MUTT version=2.55 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp) Subject: Re: 11 Hour Installs on KDE? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 21:27:05 -0000 The reason the bsd port takes longer to build is that it has to be compiled first. Redhat uses pre-compiled binaries (the rpm). You can download "packages" under FreeBSD - I like compiling from the ports so that I am certain I get it linked against the right version of the libraries. I used to start a compilation of kde before going on vacation though, it took easily 15 hours on a duron 700. I have switched to fluxbox since, which takes under 5 minutes to compile and install and does what I need :) Nick On Sat, Jun 28, 2003 at 12:59:36PM -0800, Joe Pokupec wrote: > Hey Guys, > > Thanks for your input and explanations. Here's the part I don't understand > (very simplistic view). Both machines previously had Red Hat 9 installed on > them. I decided that I didn't want to pay Red Hat for their up2date feature > on each machine and decided to go back to BSD with a GUI so I could go back > to the trusty, and free ports feature(s)... > > RH9 took less than 15 minutes to install and boot for each machine. It has > the Blue Wave GUI and I would imagine is pretty bloated as well. So, from > this point of view, how can one OS take 15 minutes, while the other take 15 > hours (and counting)? > > The machines are Pentium II, 333Mhz and 400 Mhz units (both are Dells). Each > machine has 256 Megs of RAM, and one of the machines has a 60 gig drive... > > Thanks > > Joe > > > > Joe Pokupec wrote: > >> Hi All, > >> > >> I installed 5.1 on 2 separate machines yesterday. After the general install > >> (which included all the Ports), I went to /usr/ports/x11/kde3 and did a: > > > > What are these machines? Processor? RAM? > > > >> make install clean after reading tfm. > >> > >> The install has been going for over 11 hours now. It's not hung up, the text > >> is scrolling by... On both machines... > >> > >> Is there something I should know? > > > > Yes, KDE is big ... Huge ... Like ... try to imagine more code than you > > could ever imagine, and KDE might actually be bigger than that. See ... > > if you took the empire state building and put the statue of liberty on top > > of it and put them both underneath the New River Gorge Bridge, the space > > left over wouldn't be as big as KDE. If you took all the code in KDE and > > laid it end to end it would reach all the way to the sun, catch on fire and > > burn your house down (although it would take 8 minutes for the fire to get > > from the sun to your house, so you'd probably be able to get out in time) > > > > The upshot is that KDE could easily take several days to compile if you're > > dealing with less than hefty hardware. Let us know the details of the > > hardware and we'll make some guesses on how long it should take to compile. > > > >> I can re-install 5.1, 5.0, or any version on these machines if necessary, > >> but I'm somewhat curious about this huge length of install time... > > > > I doubt the version of FreeBSD is the cause. Use ALT+F2 to switch to > > another console on one of the machines and run "top" to get an idea of > > what's causing the problem. If the build process is causing a lot of > > swapping, it's probably going to take 6 or 7 years for KDE to build. > > > > > > I am not an insurance salesman, if your house burns down due to anything > > you've read in this email, I make no guarantees that your homeowner's > > policy will cover it. > > I'm also not responsible for personal injury or damage to the statue of > > liberty caused by trying to balance it on top of the empire state building. > > (I still say that damn thing sways when the wind blows!) > > Do not try this at home. Offer void where prohibited. > > > > > > -- > > Bill Moran > > Potential Technologies > > http://www.potentialtech.com > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >