Re: The ports are really funcional?

On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Zantgo <zantgo@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 insta=
ll 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 othe=
r 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"?
>

I've used FBSD since 6.2 and ports are almost always flawless. Many
times it's the combination of configuration options (in make config)
that may cause problems.

For very large packages such as the graphics system, open or libre
office etc. it's much better to use binary versions via pkg_add. It's
a waste of time to compile these very large suites and most of the
time you will get the config options wrong, and they take forever to
compile.

For things you want to tailor and optimize to your needs then use the
ports system. FBSD is so cool that it doesn't matter if you install
one way or the other and you can use almost all methods
interchangeably.

--=20
Alejandro Imass
_______________________________________________
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"