Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 09 Oct 2004 12:35:28 -0400
From:      Bill Schmitt <bilsch@schmittnet.com>
To:        Aaron Siegel <aj@siegel-tech.net>
Cc:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Gnome Package
Message-ID:  <41681350.2050604@schmittnet.com>
In-Reply-To: <200410090814.39803.aj@siegel-tech.net>
References:  <4167B46A.2090803@schmittnet.com> <200410090814.39803.aj@siegel-tech.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

   Well, it's a cable connection that doesn't seem to be having any
   difficulty. It does seem to be compiling a lot, which surprised me.
   From what you said, is the next step to do a portupgrade -Pra, again
   (with the portinstall option when, as I'm sure will happen, I do
   another start from scratch)?
   Thanks,
   Bill
   Aaron Siegel wrote:

Hello



On Saturday 09 October 2004 03:50, Bill Schmitt (SW) wrote:




  

I installed XFree86 using "pkg_add -r XFree86" and it took a 
little longer than when I had installed if from sysinstall, but it
didn't seem like a lot. Then I executed "pkg_add -r gnome2"
    

I have not had much luck installing large collections of packages with the 
pkg_add -r. Unless I am using a ports tree that was included in an official 
release the resulting installation is out of sync. with my ports tree. I have 
much better results using portsupgrade.  Portupgrade derives the package 
version from the port collection while pkg_add -r seem to download the 
package from the lastest release. Since you have just cvsup the most recent 
ports tree the packages you are installing may not be the same version as 
what you have in you ports tree. Run portsversion -v | less to verify the 
package you are installing are in sync. with your ports.

I am not sure why it is taking so long to install your ports. Do you have a 
fast internet connection? When installing binary packages your internet 
connection is going to be what dictates the speed of the install not your 
processor. The task is not processor intensive.  



  

24 hours  
      

later, it's still running. I'm not super-concerned, but I'm trying to
understand what the differences are between the original, from the CD,
installation and this one. It's a slow machine (300MHz Pentium 2) so I
don't expect stellar performance, but it seems rather long.

_______________________________________________
[1]freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
[2]http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
[3]"freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"


_______________________________________________
[4]freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
[5]http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [6]"freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"

References

   1. mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
   2. http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
   3. mailto:freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org
   4. mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
   5. http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
   6. mailto:freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?41681350.2050604>