The ports are really funcional?

[Neal Hogan]

ummmm . . . this person has been doing similar
"hold-my-hand-I-do-not-want-to-take-the-time" kinda thing on the oBSD
lists recently.



On 10/30/11, Zantgo <zantgo at gmail.com> wrote:
> El 30-10-2011, a las 19:55, Warren Block <wblock at wonkity.com> escribió:
>
>> On Sun, 30 Oct 2011, Zantgo wrote:
>>
>>> What happens is that I tried to install things on the ports, but almost
>>> no one serves me, I've only been able to install firefox, I tried also
>>> install KDE, GNOME and KFCE, but I have been many errors, commonly
>>> solocionables, for example I had to modify "REFRESH" to "true", but also
>>> to get out other errors, commonly have a solution, but is a great problem
>>> to have to spend all his time fixing bugs. Please tell me if it is
>>> natural to every time I download large modifying ports so, if so, then
>>> why say "functional"?
>>
>> Yes, ports work well.  From the description, it's difficult to tell what
>> is causing the problem.  Please supply additional information, like what
>> version of FreeBSD and the exact output of one of the errors (script(1) is
>> useful for that).  Also see the section in the Handbook about packages and
>> ports:
>> http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/ports.html
>>
>> Translations of the Handbook can be found at
>> ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/doc/ in the books subdirectory.
>
> the problem is not the problem, since most are solving the problem is that
> there are many errors and problems, then as I say it is stable and
> functional?_______________________________________________
> freebsd-questions at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>