Installation instructions for Firefox somewhere?
kdk at daleco.biz
Sun Feb 27 21:03:45 GMT 2005
Leonard Zettel wrote:
>On Sunday 27 February 2005 04:01 am, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
>>>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.
>>> if you mean, by "pull the index from an ftp site" cd /usr/ports &&
>>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
>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
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
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.
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 ....
More information about the freebsd-questions