Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 17:57:40 -0500 From: "Aryeh M. Friedman" <aryeh.friedman@gmail.com> To: Paul Schmehl <pauls@utdallas.edu> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering Message-ID: <475489E4.2050704@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CF7CA160EBCB18FB5A6E7ECB@utd59514.utdallas.edu> References: <BDFE616B01457E0B71D9FD2F@utd59514.utdallas.edu> <47547FEE.9040405@gmail.com> <CF7CA160EBCB18FB5A6E7ECB@utd59514.utdallas.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Paul Schmehl wrote: > --On Monday, December 03, 2007 17:15:10 -0500 "Aryeh M. Friedman" > <aryeh.friedman@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 else installed > >> 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 >> installed: >> > 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 > here. 6.2 was the last time I saw it (I run -current right now) but the point remains. > >> these are just the ones I have found after installing 2 mega >> metaports and the java stuff... god knows what is lurking out >> there >>> >>> 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 /usr/ports/.... > >> >> If that doesn't guerntee upto date ports nothing will > > That will guarantee problems for sure. Get your glasses checked. - -- Aryeh M. Friedman FloSoft Systems Developer, not business, friendly http://www.flosoft-systems.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHVInj358R5LPuPvsRAio1AJwJ3CuB9CS65DQXoyuDpPc4xrDjqACfYzAW Cmyxu7w5CEydozJrdWUp8zo= =SkVO -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?475489E4.2050704>