Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 15:03:39 -0600 From: Kevin Kinsey <kdk@daleco.biz> To: Leonard Zettel <zettel@acm.org> Cc: Anthony Atkielski <atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr> Subject: Re: Installation instructions for Firefox somewhere? Message-ID: <422235AB.5020308@daleco.biz> In-Reply-To: <200502270835.07745.zettel@acm.org> References: <20050226130211.4162005f.albi@scii.nl> <20050227045510.M67328@reiteration.net> <956914133.20050227100144@wanadoo.fr> <200502270835.07745.zettel@acm.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Leonard Zettel wrote: >On Sunday 27 February 2005 04:01 am, Anthony Atkielski wrote: > > >>John writes: >> >> >>>If space is tight, running make >>>distclean after make install helps, as does periodically deleting the >>>contents of /usr/ports/distfiles >>> >>> >>Does pkg_add do this? >> >> There's no need for [one of] the exact reason[s] that has you already sold on packages instead of ports. There's nothing "excess" [much] in a binary package. If you're install via ports, you get a source tarball that d'loads to /ports/distfiles, then is uncompressed and untarred to a "work" subdir in the port directory, where all the ' "config/make/make install" happens. If you `make install clean` the port, this subdir is `rm`ed after installation. If you `make distclean` the source tarball is removed, also. >>>[0] if you mean, by "pull the index from an ftp site" cd /usr/ports && >>>make index >>> >>> >>I meant running /stand/sysinstall and selecting an FTP site as the >>"installation media" for the software. It always downloads some sort of >>index when I do that, which I assume is an up-to-date list of all the >>ports available. >> >> > >Being somewhat of a newvie, I should probably not be saying anything, >but that's the assumption that nailed you. > >If I understand the situation correctly, what you got was information >on *packages* available when the OS version was released, a subset >of available ports. And this time around, that list was not in a totally >self-consistent state. > > > I wrote two [one rather long] post[s] yesterday on this. The conclusion I drew is that you get an Index coinciding with the 'Release Name' you have set under sysinstall's "Configure -> Options" menu. As I do my ports work in terminals instead of via sysinstall, I can't say *for certain*, and no one authoritative has stepped forward to confirm or deny my hypothesis. If you can set this to an appropriate value, you should get a useable list of packages.... >My own experiences have given me a definite bias toward using the >ports system to compile stuff to be added to my system rather than >going with the binary packages. I get the impression that many >port maintainers who are fairly careful about keeping their port >versions workable and patched only give a relative lick and promise >to their packages. > -LenZ- > > While I share your bias towards the ports tree, I think that this final impression might be wrong<?>. Kris Kennaway et al have a rather extensive system for automated package-building. built very regularly (see http://pointyhat.freebsd.org). Of course, they don't control the source of all those ports, so I guess it's possible that if some maintainers have their software in a broken or buggy state when a set of packages is built for a RELEASE, there's not much that can be done about it at the time. I'm sure that maintainers are notified a few times before a RELEASE in order to get their affairs in order, but that doesn't mean that they do, or that it's FBSD's fault if they don't. I guess if you knew the URI of a recently built package from the Project's "bento cluster", (or whatever it's called), you could use pkg_add against that address and get something newer if you wanted to. Me, I like ports .... Kevin Kinsey
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?422235AB.5020308>