Date: Tue, 12 Sep 06 17:30:43 PDT From: perryh@pluto.rain.com (Perry Hutchison) To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Cc: duncan.fbsd@gmail.com Subject: Re: The Ports collection / FreeBSD CDs Message-ID: <10609130030.AA23373@pluto.rain.com> In-Reply-To: <4507352C.5030906@gmail.com> References: <d85a51ff0609120304kf4bb0bdy8fba0ed4c7f174e6@mail.gmail.com> <8a0028260609120341v61920cf5p3aad4710ef3bd634@mail.gmail.com> <186816020.20060912160233@gmail.com> <200609122139.00187.list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com> <10609122105.AA22770@pluto.rain.com> <4507352C.5030906@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > ... at least in my recent experience, an up-to-date ports tree > > does not always play nicely with a not-updated base install from > > CD. > > That's very interesting. However, the ports tree on the CD isn't > complete, as in: not all the ports are there. Any idea why? (I am referring to the ports tree itself, i.e. the collection of skeleton directories. The set of distfiles provided on CDs 3 and 4 is necessarily incomplete, both due to limited space and because some distfiles have legal restrictions that prevent their inclusion.) > I stopped installing the ports tree from the install CD a long > time ago for that reason. Perhaps sysinstall's rather strong recommendation to install the ports ought to be toned down a bit, e.g. to suggest installing the ports from CD only if one does not have a high-speed Internet connection.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?10609130030.AA23373>