General issues with the ports system
epilogue at allstream.net
Wed Jul 7 11:10:30 PDT 2004
On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 19:01:44 +0200
"Konstantin 'Kosta' Welke" <damaker at fillibach.de> wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 19:20:21 -0700, Roop Nanuwa <roop.nanuwa at gmail.com>
> >> b) Is it possible to use & install ports without having a ports tree?
> > You will need the ports-base in addition to the directory for the port
> > itself to compile any ports yourself.
> Yeah, that seems pretty logical.
> > Also, realize that most ports
> > have dependencies that will need to be satisfied if you wish to
> > compile them. Those will also have to be present.
> Sure. I guess the main problem with the "use cvs to get only the
> portsdir you want" problem is that *IF* there is an unsatisfied
> dependency, it can't `cd` to the right directory. This is the
> tricky part :) Maybe its covered in 'BSD Hacks'...
> > If you want to trim down the unnecessary parts of the ports
> > tree, look into using the 'refuse' file in the cvsup man page. I'd
> > say that's a much better way to go about it.
keep in mind that, if you decide to sup only a portion of the ports tree,
you *will* run into problems with INDEX builds, which will in turn
adversely affect the usability of several of the port management tools
(the portupgrade suite for one).
> Sure. And the portsclean utility is pretty nice, too. Much much
> better than `cd /usr/ports && make clean`...
> Still, my /usr/ports about 260 megs (without distfiles), which should
> be okay for just about any computer these days :)
> freebsd-ports at freebsd.org mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
More information about the freebsd-ports