[PC-BSD Testing] Runports needs help
fabrizio at bibivu.com
Wed Jun 17 04:34:53 PDT 2009
Maybe we can integrate runpprts with add-remove software. Show the
list of ports available, ask for wich parameters the user wants to add
to the make, do a make config;make;make test;make install..
Maybe even ask the user if the want to execute a command before or
after the installation.
In that way u can automatically run the runports for that user and
Maybe we can also use this tool to report which are the ports most
installed an see if we can make PBIs even before the user asks for.
My iPhone helped me send this email from around the world!!
On Jun 16, 2009, at 23:45, Jeff <dejamuse at yahoo.com> wrote:
> If you use the pkg_add command, be aware that you might not get the
> latest version either because the package is behind in getting built
> if the port version is new, or because of the fact that the system
> will only use the package that was released at the time of the OS
> release. You have to explicitly tell FreeBSD where to get the
> latest release, as explained here.
> Sure could use a ports/package manager that worked. Kports has been
> rewritten for KDE4 but doesn't yet do much other than report what
> you have. Slow progress. Perhaps PCBSD could take over that project
> and get it finished.
> --- On Tue, 6/16/09, Kris Moore <kris at pcbsd.org> wrote:
> From: Kris Moore <kris at pcbsd.org>
> Subject: Re: [PC-BSD Testing] Runports needs help
> To: "PC-BSD Testing list" <testing at lists.pcbsd.org>
> Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 11:39 AM
> 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
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> Testing mailing list
> Testing at lists.pcbsd.org
> Testing mailing list
> Testing at lists.pcbsd.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Testing