Question on Dependent Ports
in [FreeBSD]
|
Prev: i need my squeezeboxserver back!
Next: NYC LOCAL: Wednesday 17 March 2010 NYLUG: Forest Mars and Jingsheng Wang on Drupal
From: Balwinder S Dheeman on 16 Mar 2010 00:01 On 03/16/2010 02:14 AM, Louis Epstein wrote: > mechanic <mechanic(a)example.net> wrote: > : On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 05:21:24 +0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein wrote: > : > :> When the Ports Collection listing tells you that some particular > :> port "requires" dozens of others...does that mean you have to go > :> install each of those,or that the makefile for that port will > :> install the others in the course of installing it? > : > : If there are 'dozens' something may be wrong - I had that problem > : with kphotoalbum, it turned out BSD was trying to install a KDE3.5 > : version so needed tons of earlier packages. > > Take a look at the FreeBSD.org listings for Seamonkey 2.0.3 or > OpenTTD for example...definitely dozens for each. > > One may have installed some of the dozens in installing other > things,but I suppose the "doesn't seem to exist on this system" > function will pop up a lot. > > (Incidentally,I had to edit the Makefile for elm 2.5.8 to add > someplace that DOES have the tarball,the listed sites,including > the port maintainer's,don't). File a PR or submit a patch and, or update against an obsolete FreeBSD port you will have to wait for months if not years, even if you are maintainer, to get that committed into main stream ports collection either due to negligence or lack of maintainers having commit rights. That's but bureaucracy of FreeBSD development model ;) -- Balwinder S "bdheeman" Dheeman Registered Linux User: #229709 Anu'z Linux(a)HOME (Unix Shoppe) Machines: #168573, 170593, 259192 Chandigarh, UT, 160062, India Plan9, T2, Arch/Debian/FreeBSD/XP Home: http://werc.homelinux.net/ Visit: http://counter.li.org/
From: Ted Nolan <tednolan> on 16 Mar 2010 00:41 In article <hnm679$k28$1(a)reader1.panix.com>, Louis Epstein <le(a)main.put.com> wrote: >mechanic <mechanic(a)example.net> wrote: >: On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 05:21:24 +0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein wrote: >: >:> When the Ports Collection listing tells you that some particular >:> port "requires" dozens of others...does that mean you have to go >:> install each of those,or that the makefile for that port will >:> install the others in the course of installing it? >: >: If there are 'dozens' something may be wrong - I had that problem >: with kphotoalbum, it turned out BSD was trying to install a KDE3.5 >: version so needed tons of earlier packages. > >Take a look at the FreeBSD.org listings for Seamonkey 2.0.3 or >OpenTTD for example...definitely dozens for each. > >One may have installed some of the dozens in installing other >things,but I suppose the "doesn't seem to exist on this system" >function will pop up a lot. > >(Incidentally,I had to edit the Makefile for elm 2.5.8 to add >someplace that DOES have the tarball,the listed sites,including >the port maintainer's,don't). > Not necessary. Just put the tarball in /usr/ports/distfiles and everything will work OK. Ted -- ------ columbiaclosings.com What's not in Columbia anymore..
From: Warren Block on 16 Mar 2010 00:55 Louis Epstein <le(a)main.put.com> wrote: > mechanic <mechanic(a)example.net> wrote: >: On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 05:21:24 +0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein wrote: >: >:> When the Ports Collection listing tells you that some particular >:> port "requires" dozens of others...does that mean you have to go >:> install each of those,or that the makefile for that port will >:> install the others in the course of installing it? >: >: If there are 'dozens' something may be wrong - I had that problem >: with kphotoalbum, it turned out BSD was trying to install a KDE3.5 >: version so needed tons of earlier packages. > > Take a look at the FreeBSD.org listings for Seamonkey 2.0.3 or > OpenTTD for example...definitely dozens for each. > > One may have installed some of the dozens in installing other > things, Yes. For Seamonkey, most of those dependencies will already be in place just from installing xorg. And then there's basic stuff like gettext and perl. It's worth running a 'make config-recursive' first to turn off optional stuff you don't want. > but I suppose the "doesn't seem to exist on this system" > function will pop up a lot. On a new system, yes. Install a few of the bigger ports and they'll drag in all the ordinary dependencies. > (Incidentally,I had to edit the Makefile for elm 2.5.8 to add > someplace that DOES have the tarball,the listed sites,including > the port maintainer's,don't). Might be a temporary situation. It's worth checking with the maintainer to make sure they're aware of it. -- Warren Block * Rapid City, South Dakota * USA
From: Philip Paeps on 23 Mar 2010 09:53 Balwinder S Dheeman <bsd.SANSPAM(a)cto.homelinux.net> wrote: > On 03/16/2010 02:14 AM, Louis Epstein wrote: >> mechanic <mechanic(a)example.net> wrote: >> : On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 05:21:24 +0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein wrote: >> : >> :> When the Ports Collection listing tells you that some particular >> :> port "requires" dozens of others...does that mean you have to go >> :> install each of those,or that the makefile for that port will >> :> install the others in the course of installing it? >> : >> : If there are 'dozens' something may be wrong - I had that problem >> : with kphotoalbum, it turned out BSD was trying to install a KDE3.5 >> : version so needed tons of earlier packages. >> >> Take a look at the FreeBSD.org listings for Seamonkey 2.0.3 or >> OpenTTD for example...definitely dozens for each. >> >> One may have installed some of the dozens in installing other >> things,but I suppose the "doesn't seem to exist on this system" >> function will pop up a lot. >> >> (Incidentally,I had to edit the Makefile for elm 2.5.8 to add >> someplace that DOES have the tarball,the listed sites,including >> the port maintainer's,don't). > > File a PR or submit a patch and, or update against an obsolete FreeBSD > port you will have to wait for months if not years, even if you are > maintainer, to get that committed into main stream ports collection > either due to negligence or lack of maintainers having commit rights. > > That's but bureaucracy of FreeBSD development model ;) I think that's a bit harsh. Indeed, update PRs sometimes hang around for a bit (I've personally been guilty of that a couple of times, even in the case of trivial updates to well-maintained ports by well-respected contributors) because "life happens" and sometimes other things need priority. In general though, a bit of prodding generally speeds things up a bit. If the person who 'took' the PR isn't being responsive enough, sending an email to another active ports committer asking to take care of it will generally sort things out. It's pretty rare that ports "update" PRs hang around for ages without good reason. - Philip -- Philip Paeps Please don't email any replies philip(a)paeps.cx I follow the newsgroup. hundred-and-one symptoms of being an internet addict: 108. While reading a magazine, you look for the Zoom icon for a better look at a photograph.
From: Piotr Smyrak on 23 Mar 2010 18:29
On 2010-03-23, Philip Paeps <philip+usenet(a)paeps.cx> wrote: > Balwinder S Dheeman <bsd.SANSPAM(a)cto.homelinux.net> wrote: >> On 03/16/2010 02:14 AM, Louis Epstein wrote: >>> mechanic <mechanic(a)example.net> wrote: >>> : On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 05:21:24 +0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein wrote: >>> : >>> :> When the Ports Collection listing tells you that some particular >>> :> port "requires" dozens of others...does that mean you have to go >>> :> install each of those,or that the makefile for that port will >>> :> install the others in the course of installing it? >>> : >>> : If there are 'dozens' something may be wrong - I had that problem >>> : with kphotoalbum, it turned out BSD was trying to install a KDE3.5 >>> : version so needed tons of earlier packages. >>> >>> Take a look at the FreeBSD.org listings for Seamonkey 2.0.3 or >>> OpenTTD for example...definitely dozens for each. >>> >>> One may have installed some of the dozens in installing other >>> things,but I suppose the "doesn't seem to exist on this system" >>> function will pop up a lot. >>> >>> (Incidentally,I had to edit the Makefile for elm 2.5.8 to add >>> someplace that DOES have the tarball,the listed sites,including >>> the port maintainer's,don't). >> >> File a PR or submit a patch and, or update against an obsolete FreeBSD >> port you will have to wait for months if not years, even if you are >> maintainer, to get that committed into main stream ports collection >> either due to negligence or lack of maintainers having commit rights. >> >> That's but bureaucracy of FreeBSD development model ;) > > I think that's a bit harsh. The portmgr team is very responsive nowadays IMO. > In general though, a bit of prodding generally speeds things up a bit. If the > person who 'took' the PR isn't being responsive enough, sending an email to > another active ports committer asking to take care of it will generally sort > things out. Or asking in freebsd-ports@ -- Piotr Smyrak, piotr.smyrak.eko.org.pl |