Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 19:46:25 -0600 From: dkelly@hiwaay.net To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: new ports selection option of install Message-ID: <199710290146.TAA20833@nospam.hiwaay.net> In-Reply-To: Message from "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> of "Tue, 28 Oct 1997 10:46:02 PST." <18322.878064362@time.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Is it just me, or is the ports selection option, as it stands in 2.2.5 > > (and last I checked in 3.0) rather... useless? > > I think it's just you. Nobody else has complained, and I certainly > find it damn useful to have the *entire* ports collection stored as a > single 4.3MB file which can be unpacked at any time (and I use it all > the time, even though it does take a fair while to unpack all those > files). I *like* having the entire ports collection. It does take a while to explode the tar file, mostly because of all the little files its creating. Noticed quite a while back my tape drive quit spooling when extracting /usr/ports. If the fs guys want an interesting benchmark, benchmark a recursive copy of /usr/ports. The ports are so useful to me, that when somebody at work asks about a utility to do this or that, the first place I look is in my /usr/ports. Find something interesting there, its trivial to download and play with. If it works, then the hard work starts as they'll want it under Solaris or Irix.... Now packages are another thing. *I* don't have much use for Japanese, Russian, or Korean packages. Am glad to know they exist. Deleting those gets FreeBSD down to single CD size. -- David Kelly N4HHE, dkelly@hiwaay.net ===================================================================== The human mind ordinarily operates at only ten percent of its capacity -- the rest is overhead for the operating system.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199710290146.TAA20833>