> "Dick" == Dick Hoogendijk writes:
Dick> Are the quotes neccessary?
No.
--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See http://methodsandmessages.pos
On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 10:35:08AM +0200, Romain Garbage wrote:
> 2011/4/3 Chris Telting :
> >
> >> seriously, this is why i want that debian+freebsd that was
> >> discussed recently. the kernel is ours and number one in the
> >> world. and the ports stuff is basically packag
On Sat, Apr 02, 2011 at 05:07:54PM -0700, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
> Chris Rees wrote:
> > On 2 April 2011 00:58, Chris Telting wrote:
> > >
> > > One of my biggest gripes with the ports system is dependency hell.
> >
> > I think you've misunderstood the term dependency hell [1]. Anyone
> > w
Op 2-4-2011 19:03, Randal L. Schwartz schreef:
That's one of the first things I do with a fresh system that will be
only a server:
echo "WITHOUT_X11=yes">> /etc/make.conf
And then *never* use packages. Only ports
Are the quotes neccessary?
___
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 5:07 AM, Chris Telting
wrote:
>
>
> How does debian get around all the "make config" options that we deal with?
> Such as does such and such package pull in samba... Or does debian just
> compile with every option more or less enabled?
>
Yes, and no. One debian "source" p
2011/4/3 Chris Telting :
>
>> seriously, this is why i want that debian+freebsd that was
>> discussed recently. the kernel is ours and number one in the
>> world. and the ports stuff is basically packages that more/less
>> just-work. you can get the src =with= the pkg
On Sat, Apr 02, 2011 at 08:07:25PM -0700, Chris Telting wrote:
>
> > seriously, this is why i want that debian+freebsd that was
> > discussed recently. the kernel is ours and number one in the
> > world. and the ports stuff is basically packages that more/less
> > just-work. you
seriously, this is why i want that debian+freebsd that was
discussed recently. the kernel is ours and number one in the
world. and the ports stuff is basically packages that more/less
just-work. you can get the src =with= the pkg.
How does debian get around
On Sat, Apr 02, 2011 at 07:45:06PM -0500, Ryan Coleman wrote:
>
>
> On Apr 2, 2011, at 7:07 PM, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
>
> > Chris Rees wrote:
> >> On 2 April 2011 00:58, Chris Telting wrote:
> >>> One of my biggest gripes with the ports system is dependency hell.
> >>
> >> I think you'
On Apr 2, 2011, at 7:07 PM, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
> Chris Rees wrote:
>> On 2 April 2011 00:58, Chris Telting wrote:
>>> One of my biggest gripes with the ports system is dependency hell.
>>
>> I think you've misunderstood the term dependency hell [1]. Anyone
>> who has spent hours str
Chris Rees wrote:
> On 2 April 2011 00:58, Chris Telting wrote:
> > One of my biggest gripes with the ports system is dependency hell.
>
> I think you've misunderstood the term dependency hell [1]. Anyone
> who has spent hours struggling with rpm ... would never dare to
> even think of such terms
On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 21:36:55 -0700, Chris Telting
wrote:
> On 04/01/2011 17:51, Polytropon wrote:
> > On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 16:58:04 -0700, Chris
> > Telting wrote:
> >> Just in a thoughtful mood and thought I'd to the question to the cloud.
> > Oh the joy of cloud computing, erm... discussion. :
> "Matt" == Matt Emmerton writes:
Matt> Every time I see a webserver with X11 on it, it's because of these two.
Of
Matt> course, using ghostscript*-nox11 as well as setting WITHOUT_X11=yes
solves a
Matt> lot of this mess, but on a system that's already been "infested", it's
Matt> easier ju
Chris Telting wrote:
> See above. What I want to see is minimal installs with all features
> being usable once you install the optional components. And run time
> detection for programs shouldn't be all that difficult or computation
> intensive. The program would just consult pkg_info or another
On 2-4-2011 2:51, Polytropon wrote:
So there is still stuff one needs to compile, and
YOU are in charge to define the options you need.
This is the "downside" when you're running a multi-
purpose OS like FreeBSD.
That is a good thing. But I remember an issue that I never understood. I
onced se
On 2 April 2011 00:58, Chris Telting wrote:
>
> Just in a thoughtful mood and thought I'd to the question to the cloud.
>
> One of my biggest gripes with the ports system is dependency hell.
I think you've misunderstood the term dependency hell [1]. Anyone who
has spent hours struggling with rpm
On 04/01/2011 17:51, Polytropon wrote:
On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 16:58:04 -0700, Chris Telting
wrote:
Just in a thoughtful mood and thought I'd to the question to the cloud.
Oh the joy of cloud computing, erm... discussion. :-)
Wasn't that the a subplot of the hitch hikers guide? That the sum of
> > The number of console
> > programs that want to pull in X window or kde is
> > my boggling.
>
> Hmmm... The only one I remember being that way is
> the old cvsup, but there was nocvsup-nogui (or -nox11?).
Over the years I've found that ghostscript and gd are two common culprits.
Every time I
On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 16:58:04 -0700, Chris Telting
wrote:
> Just in a thoughtful mood and thought I'd to the question to the cloud.
Oh the joy of cloud computing, erm... discussion. :-)
> One of my biggest gripes with the ports system is dependency hell.
> Ports link against so my optional c
On Fri, 1 Apr 2011, Chris Telting wrote:
One of my biggest gripes with the ports system is dependency hell. Ports
link against so my optional components and pull them into the install.
Libraries and components are built based on make file defines. But this
doesn't have to be so. It's possib
Andrey Shuvikov wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm trying to figure out port dependencies on my (freshly installed)
> FreeBSD 7.0. For example, I have two automake ports:
>
> $ pkg_info | grep automake-1
> automake-1.5_4,1GNU Standards-compliant Makefile generator (1.5)
> automake-1.6.3 GNU Standar
21 matches
Mail list logo
