[PC-BSD Testing] Runports needs help

Kris Moore kris at pcbsd.org
Tue Jun 16 08:39:40 PDT 2009

On Tue, 16 Jun 2009, Fabrizio Parrella wrote:

> maybe we can have runport always set, and have a command to run to go back to the current operational mode
> Fabry
> Ian Robinson wrote:
>       Dear Kris,
>       Looking at the number of fixes you are posting to the Trac for 7.1.1, you are working hard seven days a week.  We are all
>       anticipating the upcoming release of 7.1.1 and its refinement of the 7.1 base.
>       For PCBSD 7.2 or PCBSD 8.0, which ever comes first, please consider this comment for addition to the Wish List of
>       improvements: 
>       Improve the setup and implementation of the local user base issue ("runports") by having the runports preparatory work
>       completed and ready-to-run as part of the ports installation.   The the idea behind having ports installed in a local user
>       base is a great one to fulfill the purpose that the base system will not get broken by a user installing ports.
>       However, while editing configuration files and running whatever shell scripts need running is a trivial task, completing
>       the very lengthy "make" process is a barrier, consumes several hours or overnight to compile, and might end in failure
>       anyway.   Right now the local base-runports issue is causing confusion amongst users and is therefore a barrier to PCBSD
>       and potentially harmful to its reputation as an easy to use operating system.
>       See http://forums.pcbsd.org/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=13714&p=81224#p81224 which lists several forum links where confusion
>       surrounding the runports problem has surfaced.
>       If a user chooses to install the optional ports tree (which is a big plus for PCBSD users), he or she will necessarily need
>       to use runports.  If the runports preparation was ready for use through the installation, a user could select runports and
>       thereafter follow the traditional method to cd to the port's location,and install the port without further fuss or
>       knowledge.
>       Pros:  Elimination of confusion, ease-of-use, easy adaptation of PCBSD, protection from breaking the system base.
>       Cons:  Kris will have to do more work compiling the parts for installation.
>       I wonder what others think?
>       Ian Robinson
>       Salem, Ohio
>        _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Right now I don't think I can default to using the runports shell for users, since it will prevent you from opening konsole
and running "dolphin" or any other built in command and having it function properly :(

However, that being said, John Hixson has come up with an idea that we are looking to implement into PC-BSD 8.0, which will
eleminate the need to even have / use runports at all, but still allow us to have a fresh localbase which the user can
run seperately. If it works the way we think it will, then you'll simply be able to open konsole or some port GUI, and run
make like you would on a traditional FreeBSD system, and it'll just work, without getting entangled on the alternative LOCALBASE.

As for the lengthly "make" process, I'm not sure what we can do about that. If you start with a blank /usr/local, then of course
any port you build will need to build all the dependancies first as well. However, if you wish to speed this up, you can
always use the "pkg_add -r" command and fetch the FreeBSD pre-built binaries for package X and skip the make all together.

Kris Moore
PC-BSD Software

More information about the Testing mailing list