Hello, All I am a user of Linux for many years (and an aged BSD sysadmin from 1985-1989), but laterly mainly use Gentoo. FreeBSD seemed to be a good alternative, so I get the 6.0 release a few days after it was released. Being a Gentoo person, I like the ports system, but with limited time on my hands, I also like the compiled packages. I can get a working system from packages then compile my own ports as need or want be. Or so I thought. I installed from two CDs, and got a working KDE system. Now, I want to do Firefox from ports with my own make.conf for P4 optimisation. Good! So, I sync with the sources using cvsup (just like emerge --sync) change to the Firefox ports directory, type "make" and enter dependency hell like has never been known before. Everything that depends upon GTK2 must be updated before Firefox can be compiled! I thought that FreeBSD would be more stable than Gentoo and Linux distros in general. I now find that there is the most major release step (5.4 to 6.0) and within a matter of a few days later, both Gnome and KDE are subject to huge updates that require many hours (or maybe days - it's not done yet) of CPU time. Maybe I am missing something. However, I just cannot see why this is right. What I thought that FreeBSD would give me that Gentoo did not is a coherent system within which deveopment was co-ordinated. Instead, I seem to find the opposite. The core group can offer a major release of the OS, while missing the fact that two hugely important development groups are just days off their own major releases. Maybe there is a level of sanity I am missing as a newcomer to BSD, but I would really like someone to tell me where to find it so that I can stop having to use this bloody Windows laptop to post here ;-) Regards A
Hello, All I am a user of Linux for many years (and an aged BSD sysadmin from 1985-1989), but laterly mainly use Gentoo. FreeBSD seemed to be a good alternative, so I get the 6.0 release a few days after it was released. Being a Gentoo person, I like the ports system, but with limited time on my hands, I also like the compiled packages. I can get a working system from packages then compile my own ports as need or want be. Or so I thought. I installed from two CDs, and got a working KDE system. Now, I want to do Firefox from ports with my own make.conf for P4 optimisation. Good! So, I sync with the sources using cvsup (just like emerge --sync) change to the Firefox ports directory, type "make" and enter dependency hell like has never been known before. Everything that depends upon GTK2 must be updated before Firefox can be compiled! I thought that FreeBSD would be more stable than Gentoo and Linux distros in general. I now find that there is the most major release step (5.4 to 6.0) and within a matter of a few days later, both Gnome and KDE are subject to huge updates that require many hours (or maybe days - it's not done yet) of CPU time. Maybe I am missing something. However, I just cannot see why this is right. What I thought that FreeBSD would give me that Gentoo did not is a coherent system within which deveopment was co-ordinated. Instead, I seem to find the opposite. The core group can offer a major release of the OS, while missing the fact that two hugely important development groups are just days off their own major releases. Maybe there is a level of sanity I am missing as a newcomer to BSD, but I would really like someone to tell me where to find it so that I can stop having to use this bloody Windows laptop to post here ;-) Regards A
On Monday 07 November 2005 15:49, Alistair wrote:> Hello, All > > I am a user of Linux for many years (and an aged BSD sysadmin from > 1985-1989), but laterly mainly use Gentoo. FreeBSD seemed to be a good > alternative, so I get the 6.0 release a few days after it was released. > > Being a Gentoo person, I like the ports system, but with limited time on > my hands, I also like the compiled packages. I can get a working system > from packages then compile my own ports as need or want be. Or so I > thought. > > I installed from two CDs, and got a working KDE system. Now, I want to > do Firefox from ports with my own make.conf for P4 optimisation. Good! > So, I sync with the sources using cvsup (just like emerge --sync) > change to the Firefox ports directory, type "make" and enter dependency > hell like has never been known before. Everything that depends upon > GTK2 must be updated before Firefox can be compiled!If you don't want to do an entire upgrade of gnome2 or KDE but just get Firefox right install sysutils/portmanager (version 0.3.2 is in ports right now) then run portmanager www/firefox It will upgrade the dependencies that just pertain to firefox first then either upgrade firefox or install it if you don't have it yet. When version 0.3.3 of portmanager gets into the ports tree (pr is submitted) you can do the entire kde/gnome upgrade with just portmanager -u -Mike> > I thought that FreeBSD would be more stable than Gentoo and Linux > distros in general. I now find that there is the most major release > step (5.4 to 6.0) and within a matter of a few days later, both Gnome > and KDE are subject to huge updates that require many hours (or maybe > days - it's not done yet) of CPU time.> > Maybe I am missing something. However, I just cannot see why this is > right. What I thought that FreeBSD would give me that Gentoo did not is > a coherent system within which deveopment was co-ordinated. Instead, I > seem to find the opposite. The core group can offer a major release of > the OS, while missing the fact that two hugely important development > groups are just days off their own major releases. > > Maybe there is a level of sanity I am missing as a newcomer to BSD, but > I would really like someone to tell me where to find it so that I can > stop having to use this bloody Windows laptop to post here ;-) > > Regards > A > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Alistair wrote:> Hello, AllHi,> > Maybe there is a level of sanity I am missing as a newcomer to BSD, but > I would really like someone to tell me where to find it so that I can > stop having to use this bloody Windows laptop to post here ;-)Have a look at the sysutils/portupgrade port - that should solve all your problems in a jiffy (or however long it takes to recompile/redownload the packages/ports you need :) Regards, S?ren Klintrup
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 00:49:18 +0100, Alistair <alistair@tyeurgain.free-online.co.uk> wrote:> Hello, All > > I am a user of Linux for many years (and an aged BSD sysadmin from > 1985-1989), but laterly mainly use Gentoo. FreeBSD seemed to be a good > alternative, so I get the 6.0 release a few days after it was released. > > Being a Gentoo person, I like the ports system, but with limited time on > my hands, I also like the compiled packages. I can get a working system > from packages then compile my own ports as need or want be. Or so I > thought. > > I installed from two CDs, and got a working KDE system. Now, I want to > do Firefox from ports with my own make.conf for P4 optimisation. Good! > So, I sync with the sources using cvsup (just like emerge --sync) > change to the Firefox ports directory, type "make" and enter dependency > hell like has never been known before. Everything that depends upon > GTK2 must be updated before Firefox can be compiled! > > I thought that FreeBSD would be more stable than Gentoo and Linux > distros in general. I now find that there is the most major release > step (5.4 to 6.0) and within a matter of a few days later, both Gnome > and KDE are subject to huge updates that require many hours (or maybe > days - it's not done yet) of CPU time. > > Maybe I am missing something. However, I just cannot see why this is > right. What I thought that FreeBSD would give me that Gentoo did not is > a coherent system within which deveopment was co-ordinated. Instead, I > seem to find the opposite. The core group can offer a major release of > the OS, while missing the fact that two hugely important development > groups are just days off their own major releases.The portstree is tagged for a release, so if you cvsup to the tag for the release, you get the 'supported' ports. If you cvsup to the most recent portstree there is always a change for a big update. The idea behind the KDE/GNOME update is to commit the stuff after the 6.0-RELEASE in stead of before too have stable KDE/GNOME packages in the release. BTW: use the port sysutils/portupgrade. This fixes a lot of dependency troubles. BTW2: if you cvsup to the latest portstree, you can't expect everything to be available in packages. In FreeBSD ports are the focus, packages come next (currently). BTW3: http://www.freshports.org/ Ronald. -- Ronald Klop Amsterdam, The Netherlands
> I installed from two CDs, and got a working KDE system. Now, I want to do > Firefox from ports with my own make.conf for P4 optimisation. Good! So, I > sync with the sources using cvsup (just like emerge --sync) change to the > Firefox ports directory, type "make" and enter dependency hell like has > never been known before. Everything that depends upon GTK2 must be > updated before Firefox can be compiled! > > I thought that FreeBSD would be more stable than Gentoo and Linux distros > in general. I now find that there is the most major release step (5.4 to > 6.0) and within a matter of a few days later, both Gnome and KDE are > subject to huge updates that require many hours (or maybe days - it's not > done yet) of CPU time. > > Maybe I am missing something. However, I just cannot see why this is > right. What I thought that FreeBSD would give me that Gentoo did not is a > coherent system within which deveopment was co-ordinated. Instead, I seem > to find the opposite. The core group can offer a major release of the OS, > while missing the fact that two hugely important development groups are > just days off their own major releases. > > Maybe there is a level of sanity I am missing as a newcomer to BSD, but I > would really like someone to tell me where to find it so that I can stop > having to use this bloody Windows laptop to post here ;-)Heh, essentially the problem is this... before a release, the ports tree is stabalized... everything builds and works together, broken dependencies are fixed, all is good with the world. This is the ports tree which is included in the release. After the release, More Stuff (tm) is added/updated/etc. By doing a cvsup, you asked for the "newest" version of all the ports, one which is not necessarily stable... dependencies may be broken, things may not work etc. Doing a cvsup in ports is like tracking -STABLE for ports. If you had not done the cvsup, FF would have built and installed nicely. IMHO, CVSupping ports is subject to the same caveats as tracking -STABLE (See section 20.2.2 in the handbook)
Alistair wrote:> Hello, All > > I am a user of Linux for many years (and an aged BSD sysadmin from > 1985-1989), but laterly mainly use Gentoo. FreeBSD seemed to be a > good alternative, so I get the 6.0 release a few days after it was > released. > > Being a Gentoo person, I like the ports system, but with limited time > on my hands, I also like the compiled packages. I can get a working > system from packages then compile my own ports as need or want be. Or > so I thought. > > I installed from two CDs, and got a working KDE system. Now, I want > to do Firefox from ports with my own make.conf for P4 optimisation. > Good! So, I sync with the sources using cvsup (just like emerge > --sync) change to the Firefox ports directory, type "make" and enter > dependency hell like has never been known before. Everything that > depends upon GTK2 must be updated before Firefox can be compiled! > > I thought that FreeBSD would be more stable than Gentoo and Linux > distros in general. I now find that there is the most major release > step (5.4 to 6.0) and within a matter of a few days later, both Gnome > and KDE are subject to huge updates that require many hours (or maybe > days - it's not done yet) of CPU time. > > Maybe I am missing something. However, I just cannot see why this is > right. What I thought that FreeBSD would give me that Gentoo did not > is a coherent system within which deveopment was co-ordinated. > Instead, I seem to find the opposite. The core group can offer a > major release of the OS, while missing the fact that two hugely > important development groups are just days off their own major releases. > > Maybe there is a level of sanity I am missing as a newcomer to BSD, > but I would really like someone to tell me where to find it so that I > can stop having to use this bloody Windows laptop to post here ;-) >Check out the UPDATING notes for anything about KDE cat /usr/ports/UPDATING | grep -A 13 -B 3 "kde" | grep -A 14 "20051105" Update your ports tree, then portupgrade your KDE packages, portupgrade -Rk /var/db/pkg/kde-3.4.2 Go to sleep and wake up with the latest KDE and feel good about the fact that you aren't stealing from SCO compared to using Gentoo Linux :) Mike
On Tuesday 08 Nov 2005 00:30, Stephen Hurd wrote:> > I installed from two CDs, and got a working KDE system. Now, I want to[snip]> > Heh, essentially the problem is this... before a release, the ports tree is > stabalized... everything builds and works together, broken dependencies are > fixed, all is good with the world. This is the ports tree which is > included in the release. > > After the release, More Stuff (tm) is added/updated/etc. By doing a cvsup, > you asked for the "newest" version of all the ports, one which is not > necessarily stable... dependencies may be broken, things may not work etc. > Doing a cvsup in ports is like tracking -STABLE for ports. If you had not > done the cvsup, FF would have built and installed nicely. > > IMHO, CVSupping ports is subject to the same caveats as tracking -STABLE > (See section 20.2.2 in the handbook)Hi, Stephen You have hit the nail on the head! I fundamentally misunderstood the purpose of CVSupping ports. It is not like syncing in Gentoo at all! I probably did not read the manual carefully enough; I got the idea that it was something to do routinely before making a kernel. To all others who responded. Thanks! It is true what they say about the great level of user support for FreeBSD. I will take the Gentoo machine down again at the end of the week when it is not needed and start afresh with 6.0, and try to do it properly next time! All the best Alistair