Re: The ports are really funcional?


El 30-10-2011, a las 19:55, Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> escribi=C3=B3:=


> On Sun, 30 Oct 2011, Zantgo wrote:
>=20
>> What happens is that I tried to install things on the ports, but almost n=
o one serves me, I've only been able to install firefox, I tried also instal=
l KDE, GNOME and KFCE, but I have been many errors, commonly solocionables, f=
or example I had to modify "REFRESH" to "true", but also to get out other er=
rors, commonly have a solution, but is a great problem to have to spend all h=
is time fixing bugs. Please tell me if it is natural to every time I downloa=
d large modifying ports so, if so, then why say "functional"?
>=20
> Yes, ports work well.  =46rom the description, it's difficult to tell what=
 is causing the problem.  Please supply additional information, like what ve=
rsion of FreeBSD and the exact output of one of the errors (script(1) is use=
ful for that).  Also see the section in the Handbook about packages and port=
s: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/ports.html
>=20
> Translations of the Handbook can be found at ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/Fre=
eBSD/doc/ in the books subdirectory.

the problem is not the problem, since most are solving the problem is that t=
here are many errors and problems, then as I say it is stable and functional=
?=
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"