Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 20:01:30 -0300 From: Zantgo <zantgo@gmail.com> To: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> Cc: "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: The ports are really funcional? Message-ID: <BDF25232-31BB-4BDE-ACB3-596C4F243893@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1110301648490.25320@wonkity.com> References: <F2F10B45-7FDF-44F9-B8AC-529004722FF5@gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1110301648490.25320@wonkity.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
El 30-10-2011, a las 19:55, Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> escribi=C3=B3:= > On Sun, 30 Oct 2011, Zantgo wrote: >=20 >> What happens is that I tried to install things on the ports, but almost n= o one serves me, I've only been able to install firefox, I tried also instal= l KDE, GNOME and KFCE, but I have been many errors, commonly solocionables, f= or example I had to modify "REFRESH" to "true", but also to get out other er= rors, commonly have a solution, but is a great problem to have to spend all h= is time fixing bugs. Please tell me if it is natural to every time I downloa= d large modifying ports so, if so, then why say "functional"? >=20 > Yes, ports work well. =46rom the description, it's difficult to tell what= is causing the problem. Please supply additional information, like what ve= rsion of FreeBSD and the exact output of one of the errors (script(1) is use= ful for that). Also see the section in the Handbook about packages and port= s: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/ports.html >=20 > Translations of the Handbook can be found at ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/Fre= eBSD/doc/ in the books subdirectory. the problem is not the problem, since most are solving the problem is that t= here are many errors and problems, then as I say it is stable and functional= ?=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?BDF25232-31BB-4BDE-ACB3-596C4F243893>