Re: 7.0 installation, and Xorg in particular
Frank Staals wrote: Freminlins wrote: snip Err, yeah. Look through hundreds of packages to see which dependencies they have. Helpful. Not. This way of doing X11 is seriously unhelpful to end users. If having individual packages for everything is so good, please tell me why everything in /bin, /usr/bin and so on is not an individual package. It's because the idea of doing so is dumb. Frem. Allthough I think the modular approach to Xorg is a good thing, I have to agree the xorg-meta port installs A LOT of ports. A xorg-lite port an xorg-lite port would be usefull for a user who is planning on installing a low-end X windows environment. I thought I read at the freebsd-ports list such thing was being worked on some time ago. But I haven't heard anything about it anymore for quite some time now. What happened to that idea ? I suppose because it's not needed: # cd /usr/ports/x11/xorg # make config-recursive will allow you to make all your choices. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 7.0 installation, and Xorg in particular
Freminlins wrote: I used to find FreeBSD easy. What has happened? I have a couple of machines I usually install new versions on, one is headless the other is a desktop machine (which was a 100% reliable 5.4 installation). I boot the headless machine using floppies, then install across the net. But something has happened such that I now need five floppies, and I have to put the boot one in at least twice. This wasn't the case previously. It now reminds me of an OS/2 installation with its floppy shuffling. No idea about floppies. Then for my desktop machine. sysinstall crashes if I try to install x.org. The pain of using a beta-install. No packages included. Wait for the release. So I do a pkg_add -r xorg. After about 70 packages I give up. I only used to have about 65 packages in total on my old desktop, now I need more than 70 and I haven't even got x windows up yet. So I go off and have a look and discover that x.org 7.x is modular - Which is a blessing for maintenance. http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/unix/bsd/archives/xorg-72-on-freebsd-13661;. This fellow is talking about 300 packages just for x.org! This is nuts. No two ways about it. Whoever decided to do this needs their head (or heads) examined. ... It's not like there's more stuff being installed. Only you can be more selective about which parts you need and don't need. And you don't have to rebuild all of xorg for a little update. It used to be so simple. Now it's not. If x.org didn't work for some reason I wouldn't want to track down which of hundreds of packages is missing. Who would? That's what the x11/xorg meta-port is for. Also, I noticed that python as well as perl was being installed. Is not one scripting language enough for x.org? Why are two needed? I suggest you take a look at what depends on them (pkg_info). You will have the answer, then. None of them is required to run FreeBSD. ... more flamewar fodder ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 7.0 installation, and Xorg in particular
On 29/11/2007, Dominic Fandrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So I do a pkg_add -r xorg. After about 70 packages I give up. I only used to have about 65 packages in total on my old desktop, now I need more than 70 and I haven't even got x windows up yet. So I go off and have a look and discover that x.org 7.x is modular - Which is a blessing for maintenance. But not for an end user. Who really can keep track of 300 packages? Who has some ports installed, changes one of them which is a dependency and finds something else breaks? Now this will happen to X.org. It's not like there's more stuff being installed. Only you can be more selective about which parts you need and don't need. And you don't have to rebuild all of xorg for a little update. But it is FAR more complicated. I stopped installing it after about 70 packages. I noticed it installed Cyrillic and Ethopic (didn't even know there was one) fonts. I didn't want either of them. In the old days I simply ensured that Cyrillic fonts were unchecked. Now I am supposed to go through 300 packages. It might be more selective but it is not easier. That's what the x11/xorg meta-port is for. Well the reasoning behind it is broken, and so is its implementation (see above about the unwanted fonts). I suggest you take a look at what depends on them (pkg_info). You will have the answer, then. None of them is required to run FreeBSD. Err, yeah. Look through hundreds of packages to see which dependencies they have. Helpful. Not. This way of doing X11 is seriously unhelpful to end users. If having individual packages for everything is so good, please tell me why everything in /bin, /usr/bin and so on is not an individual package. It's because the idea of doing so is dumb. Frem. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 7.0 installation, and Xorg in particular
Freminlins wrote: snip Err, yeah. Look through hundreds of packages to see which dependencies they have. Helpful. Not. This way of doing X11 is seriously unhelpful to end users. If having individual packages for everything is so good, please tell me why everything in /bin, /usr/bin and so on is not an individual package. It's because the idea of doing so is dumb. Frem. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Allthough I think the modular approach to Xorg is a good thing, I have to agree the xorg-meta port installs A LOT of ports. A xorg-lite port an xorg-lite port would be usefull for a user who is planning on installing a low-end X windows environment. I thought I read at the freebsd-ports list such thing was being worked on some time ago. But I haven't heard anything about it anymore for quite some time now. What happened to that idea ? Regards, -- -Frank Staals ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
7.0 installation, and Xorg in particular
I used to find FreeBSD easy. What has happened? I have a couple of machines I usually install new versions on, one is headless the other is a desktop machine (which was a 100% reliable 5.4 installation). I boot the headless machine using floppies, then install across the net. But something has happened such that I now need five floppies, and I have to put the boot one in at least twice. This wasn't the case previously. It now reminds me of an OS/2 installation with its floppy shuffling. Then for my desktop machine. sysinstall crashes if I try to install x.org. So I do a pkg_add -r xorg. After about 70 packages I give up. I only used to have about 65 packages in total on my old desktop, now I need more than 70 and I haven't even got x windows up yet. So I go off and have a look and discover that x.org 7.x is modular - http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/unix/bsd/archives/xorg-72-on-freebsd-13661;. This fellow is talking about 300 packages just for x.org! This is nuts. No two ways about it. Whoever decided to do this needs their head (or heads) examined. It used to be so simple. Now it's not. If x.org didn't work for some reason I wouldn't want to track down which of hundreds of packages is missing. Who would? Also, I noticed that python as well as perl was being installed. Is not one scripting language enough for x.org? Why are two needed? I am really frustrated. I don't understand how installing X* this way is supposed to be an improvement. What does it actually give me that I didn't have before? Note my old system was reliable, as is my desktop at work (a 6.2 machine). I was so frustrated that I gave up installing 7 on my home desktop and am now in Windows land. It just seems so pointless. It reminds me of the nastiness of Gnome, which has bazillions of packages, and Gnome needs nearly all of them so why make them separate? I've done enough head banging tonight. Maybe Xfree86 is still available. I haven't looked yet. Frem. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 7.0 installation, and Xorg in particular
Freminlins wrote: I used to find FreeBSD easy. What has happened? I have a couple of machines I usually install new versions on, one is headless the other is a desktop machine (which was a 100% reliable 5.4 installation). I boot the headless machine using floppies, then install across the net. But something has happened such that I now need five floppies, and I have to put the boot one in at least twice. This wasn't the case previously. It now reminds me of an OS/2 installation with its floppy shuffling. Then for my desktop machine. sysinstall crashes if I try to install x.org. So I do a pkg_add -r xorg. After about 70 packages I give up. I only used to have about 65 packages in total on my old desktop, now I need more than 70 and I haven't even got x windows up yet. So I go off and have a look and discover that x.org 7.x is modular - http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/unix/bsd/archives/xorg-72-on-freebsd-13661;. This fellow is talking about 300 packages just for x.org! This is nuts. No two ways about it. Whoever decided to do this needs their head (or heads) examined. It used to be so simple. Now it's not. If x.org didn't work for some reason I wouldn't want to track down which of hundreds of packages is missing. Who would? Also, I noticed that python as well as perl was being installed. Is not one scripting language enough for x.org? Why are two needed? I am really frustrated. I don't understand how installing X* this way is supposed to be an improvement. What does it actually give me that I didn't have before? Note my old system was reliable, as is my desktop at work (a 6.2 machine). I was so frustrated that I gave up installing 7 on my home desktop and am now in Windows land. It just seems so pointless. It reminds me of the nastiness of Gnome, which has bazillions of packages, and Gnome needs nearly all of them so why make them separate? I've done enough head banging tonight. Maybe Xfree86 is still available. I haven't looked yet. Frem. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] NetBSD still uses Xfree86 and complete installation including X is 200Mb. All packages of NetBSD are adjusted to use Xfree86. You system install crashed probably because of false assumptions on your part during the installation. 7.0 beta is NOT release. Xorg should be installed after the installation using ports or pkg_add . Ports three should be taken after the installation by portsnap utility. As of number of floppies I really could not comment on it. I did FTP installation that went without a hitch but booted a computer from the 5Mb CD. I really like OpenBSD FTP installation and the fact that you need only one floppy but in total they have five floppies depends on the type of machine you want to boot and for some you will need I think three. I do not know if creation of such specialized boot floppies would be possible for FreeBSD. It seems that younger generation does not even use floppies any more:-) What can I say. Major part of your letter is concerning XOrg which is not really a part of OS. Yes they went modular and made some significant changes. Best, Predrag ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
