Re: The ports are really funcional?

On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 18:19:16 -0300, Zantgo wrote:
> What happens is that I tried to install things on the ports,
> but almost no one serves me, I've only been able to install
> firefox, I tried also install KDE, GNOME and KFCE, but I have
> been many errors, commonly solocionables, for example I had
> to modify "REFRESH" to "true", but also to get out other errors,
> commonly have a solution, but is a great problem to have to
> spend all his time fixing bugs. Please tell me if it is
> natural to every time I download large modifying ports so,
> if so, then why say "functional"?

For better diagnostics, please provide the commands you've
run as well as the (last parts containing the errors) of
the output.

You did already get good suggestions on what to read about
how to properly use the ports infrastructure. You should
not need to define any variables (except those you intendedly
want to change according to your needs for program modification).
I'm not familiar with $REFRESH, what does this do?

Maybe using precompiled packages (via "pkg_add -r <name>")
would be a better solution here?

Oh, and don't miss to read "man ports", it's very informative!

Regarding the ports collection's functionality: It's VERY
functional and works nearly flawlessly (until, of course,
a port is broken, but this happens only a very few times).
Maybe you should search things like working Internet
connection and proper usage on your side.

-- 
Polytropon
Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
_______________________________________________
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"