[PC-BSD Testing] Runports needs help

Arthur Koziol A-Koziol at neiu.edu
Tue Jun 16 08:36:42 PDT 2009


>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>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?


<2 CENTS>
At the risk of sounding like I don't know what I'm doing / talking 
about, I have one comment on this ports business. While still in the 
process of reading Absolute FreeBSD by Lucas, I'm on the chapter 
detailing how to futz around with make and all the ports stuff to 
update this, that and the other. Now that I''m back at work and have 
an abuse box to use to test out all the stuff I've learned from 
reading the book on PCBSD 7.1, I wanted to see how much I could break 
or at least try and install KDE 4.2.4 since it's in ports now. After 
running portsnap fetch, I anticipated it would have pulled down the 
necessary port info junk for installing 4.2.4 and I could run a make 
install clean from /usr/ports/x11/kde4 but doing so brings up the 
4.2.1 installer. eugh? Imagine my surprise. So, if that's the 
confusion reference above in Ian's "Pros" statement, then yes, that 
could be a bit confusing, especially for a shmuck like me who's still 
green and doesn't quite yet know WTF he's doing. =)
</2 CENTS>

thanx,
Arthur
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.pcbsd.org/pipermail/testing/attachments/20090616/974f0d94/attachment.html 


More information about the Testing mailing list