Scott Ullrich wrote:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 5:51 AM, Angelo Turetta
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Separate host from pfSense? You mean during build or in the resulting image?
Maybe I'm dumb, but I can't understand why the binaries that compose the
base pfSense image should be installed on a non-standard prefix.
That would be acceptable if we speak about optional packages, so that
upgrades of the base system cannot be messed up by installed ports.
On the builder host, not on pfSense.
And this does not explain why the pfPorts should be missing from the image,
I cannot understand why this would depend on FreeBSD6
I would say your tree is out of date? This does work. We are just
missing a few binaries here and there that do not work correctly with
PREFIX=.
So, I think I've not explained myself clearly enough.
Those listings were from snapshots downloaded from
http://snapshots.pfsense.com/FreeBSD6/RELENG_1_2/, they are not built by
me. I've long ago stopped trying to build from source, because the build
environment is too absurd (i.e. doing a "rm -Rf /home/pfsense/pfsense"
before every build is enough to prohibit maintaining local modifications
in a manageable way).
And the embedded images I tried are from snapshots.pfsense.org, too.
Both ISOs and IMGs contain the bogus /usr/local/pfsense-bin tree. Try
downloading one and see for yourself, if you don't trust me.... :)
Angelo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
