[RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
Aryeh M. Friedman
aryeh.friedman at gmail.com
Mon Dec 3 14:57:46 PST 2007
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Paul Schmehl wrote:
> --On Monday, December 03, 2007 17:15:10 -0500 "Aryeh M. Friedman"
> <aryeh.friedman at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ===> Cleaning for xdm-1.1.6_2
>>> What was I supposed to find?
>> Did you actually run xdm or just assume because it compiled that
>> it was installed the same way in all cases...
> No, I didn't run xdm, because that wasn't the parameters of your
> test. You insisted it wouldn't install at all. Now you've changed
> the rules. In order for me to run xdm, I'd have to edit /etc/ttys
> and then restart X so that I'm using xdm instead of kdm. I'm not
> too excited about doing that given the fact that you'll most likely
> change the rules again, after it works successfully.
Actually what see is a signficant difference in the way the banner is
displayed and no I will not change the rules becuase the root issue is
xdm-banner is only installed if you make the metaport with nothing
>> hint: the visual appearance varies signficiantly depending on
>> what method you use. XDM is no not unique in this either just
>> off the top of my head I can name the following ports that
>> demostrate different behaviour depending on what order the are
> First, I find it hard to believe anyone would even bother to test
> this. You must have lots of time on your hands. Second, I would
> imagine the results would vary based on the system you have, the
> video card you're using and the ports you have installed. If it
> works, I think that's about all you can expect from ports. Ports
> only install and deinstall software. They don't configure it, and
> they don't adjust for errors in the software.
Now it is I have too much time make up your mind about what my problem
is... I would argue there a fairly large diff between blue and grey
(which in the case of xdm is the visible difference I was
mentioning)... there are 0 user configurable items that would account
for this... and as too the reason why I was doing this in the first
place was I was attempting to force FreeBSD onto a 512 MB USB stick.
>> gnome-office abiword boost openoffice-2 the entire set of jdk's
>> perl (what is the difference between the 5.8.8 in the base system
>> and the one in ports?!?!?!?)
> What version are you running? Perl hasn't been in the base for
> some time now. It's installed by default when you install FreeBSD,
> but it's a port. The reasons for that are far too long to go into
6.2 was the last time I saw it (I run -current right now) but the
>> these are just the ones I have found after installing 2 mega
>> metaports and the java stuff... god knows what is lurking out
>>> Here's a hint that would help a *ton* of users. Don't try to
>>> install a port until your ports tree is up to date. Completely
>>> up to date - as is, run portsnap or cvs or cvsup *first*,
>>> *then* try to install your port.
>> I use the following "script" (i.e. by hand) installing a new port
>> (might be overkill):
>> cd /usr/ports/.... cvsup /usr/share/examples/cvsup/ports-supfile
>> (I actually use a local cvs repo but this is clearer)
> You don't need to cd to /usr/ports to run cvsup if you're cvsupfile
> was done correctly.
I don't know what it means to you but to me .... means to some deeper dir
>> portupgrade -a make uninstall distclean install
> This will certainly get you in trouble. Make uninstall in
> /usr/ports? What made you think that was a wise thing to do?
Who said anything about doing this from /usr/ports instead of
>> If that doesn't guerntee upto date ports nothing will
> That will guarantee problems for sure.
Get your glasses checked.
Aryeh M. Friedman
Developer, not business, friendly
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the freebsd-ports