FreeBSD Ports Collection Reaches 7000 56
An Anonymous Coward writes: "The FreeBSD ports collection has just had the 7000th port committed.
The original message can be read in Kris Kennaway's post to freebsd-ports."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
FreeBSD Ports Collection Reaches 7000
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
After the last of 16 mounting screws has been removed from an access cover, it will be discovered that the wrong access cover has been removed.
Giving Debian a run for its money (Score:4, Informative)
FreeBSD is catching up fast. Hopefully soon we'll have two spectacularly complete UNIX distributions to choose from!
Re:Giving Debian a run for its money (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Giving Debian a run for its money (Score:3, Insightful)
Less than 3% GNU software? (offtopic) (Score:1)
Curious about your sig, and where your figure of less than 3% comes from. Do you have a program which actually sorts / categorizes the software on your machine by license? That sounds like an interesting statistic, I wonder what various populations's result curves would look like in that case
timothy
Re:Less than 3% GNU software? (offtopic) (Score:1)
Re:Giving Debian a run for its money (Score:2)
It's silly to claim that one or the other has the most packages. I'll still root for FreeBSD though...
Re:Giving Debian a run for its money (Score:1)
Just in time (Score:3, Interesting)
Imagine how many it could be if it wouldn't take so darn long until ports made by non-commiters make it in CVS. There are a lot of open "New Port:" pr's in GNATS, and I strongly doubt that they are all problematic in any way, problably nobody found the time to look at them in most cases. This is quite annoying, if you created a port and it sits there uncommited for months.
However, congrats to all porters! Keep on the good work.
Re:Just in time (Score:1)
Re:Just in time (Score:2)
I get the response: "Nothing's wrong with it, we're just backlogged. Here, I'll commit it right now... Thanks for your patience."
(of course, right before the 4.6 freeze, they REALLY are backlogged)
Re:7000 ports == lots of unportable software (Score:1)
to download new ports you use cvs. they're broken down into categories. www, ftp, sysutils, audio, etc. when you run your cvs script, it will always download files called: Makefile, distinfo, pkg-comment, pkg-descr, and pkg-plist. Occasionally it will create a "files" directory and include patches. It always downloads the patches, because they're generally small anyways.
Just to have exact figures I downloaded all of the ports while writing this (I usually don't download ports having to do with japanese, chinese, etc.)
Here's what I found:
returns 54 directories, one is "." and four don't count. (they're used by FreeBSD)
returns 7111 results. Now we need to subtract the 55 "."'s and all of those "."'s have a "." of their own.
7111 results, minus 110 = 7001 total ports.
returns 266 megs.
266 megs / 7001 ports = 0.038 megs per port.
Re:7000 ports == lots of unportable software (Score:1)
find
still have to remove BSD special ones from this
Re:7000 ports == lots of unportable software (Score:1)
Re:7000 ports == lots of unportable software (Score:2)
Two many people know how to write code, but don't know how to develope code. A symptom of this problem is that you get code that was written on a Linux platform, but was not written or designed for a Unix platform. So yes there is lots of unportable code.
The need for a ports system would exist regardless of the "quality of free software." Perfectly portable code will always require some patching to configure the software for the target OS. Even if all the patch does is move the location of the documents from
gak! minor correction (Score:2)
s/Two/Too/
Re:port == source or binary package ? (Score:1)
Re:port == source or binary package ? (Score:1)
do:
make package
which will compile and install the port (from source) and also create a binary package you can then add to your other machines.....Hoo Har!
Re:This story is pointless and stupid (Score:1)
Is there a collection of sources packages (Score:2, Interesting)
If you are at a slow internet connection you cannot afford to download all the sources.
I think this is the main flaw of the ports system and the reason why *BSD is not used of stand alone desktops very often.
Yes, I know that there are binary packages out there now.
BTW: a search in the posts package for "bsd is dying" returns "Sorry, nothing found. You may look for other FreeBSD Search Services."
It seems that there is still much to do for them.
Re:Is there a collection of sources packages (Score:1)
make fetch
and have one of your friends burn it, or buy/copy the disc set.
(note it probably wiser to simply select the ports
you need, put a make fetch for that port in a script... and have a friend run the script)
Re:Is there a collection of sources packages (Score:1)
Are you looking for binary packages? pkg_add -r mozilla or whatever you're looking for. The majority of the packages users want are available on the ISO for install as well.
Rather than telling us about your mensa membership, why not show us through a stroke of pure brilliance.
Re:Is there a collection of sources packages (Score:2)
Ina similar way, just because CowboyNeal owns a star trek uniform, doesn't mean he is a member of StarFleet... or is he?
Re:Is there a collection of sources packages (Score:1, Interesting)
Ports (Score:1)
Ports schmorts, don't be girly grab the source and compile. If it doesn't work it's not worth trying.
Anyways, who's going to count them all to make sure no-one's telling fibs?
Re:Ports (Score:1)
"grab the source and compile" is exactly what the BSD ports system does
Re:Ports (Score:1)
Don't be girly and just make dumb comments about BSD's features when you haven't a clue.