Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Software Operating Systems BSD

FreeBSD Ports Collection Breaks 10,000 Ports 130

Posted by timothy from the 10k-non-race dept.
sremick writes "After breaking the 9,000 mark in July, the FreeBSD ports collection was well on its way of crossing 10,000 by the end of 2003. Sure enough, we made it! According to freshports, the number of ports in the FreeBSD ports tree currently stands at 10,015. This little graph is also nice, though not completely current. Way to go, FreeBSD!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FreeBSD Ports Collection Breaks 10,000 Ports More

FreeBSD Ports Collection Breaks 10,000 Ports

Comments Filter:

  • The title (Score:5, Insightful)

    by aridhol ( 112307 ) <ka_lac@hotmail.com> on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @01:06PM (#7846649) Homepage Journal
    That title makes it look like changes to the port system broke all the ports. Maybe "exceeds" rather than "breaks"?
    • Yeah I thought about that after. Oh well. I can't fix it myself. Maybe someone else can? Regardless, it's true even if it can be misinterpreted, and the proper meaning becomes apparent immediately in the first sentence... you don't even have to RTFA. ;) (WA?)

      But if a mod wants to tweak the title, I won't be offended.
    • Yes, I've had more than one occasion when it seemed like 10,000 ports broke for me...

    • As I write, freshports says that there are 10022 ports. However, 62 of those are marked as broken, and 4 are marked as forbidden, so perhaps the celebration is premature. Only 44 ports need to be fixed!

      • As I write, freshports says that there are 10022 ports. However, 62 of those are marked as broken, and 4 are marked as forbidden, so perhaps the celebration is premature. Only 44 ports need to be fixed!

        Actually, it isn't that bad. Some ports report they are broken based on versions (like version of fbsd, perl, etc). For example, take a look at the Makefile of gnump3d [freebsd.org]. It requires a certain version of perl before it'll be 'unbroken'. Then again, it may be worse, because some don't compile, but aren't

        • Interesting; I assumed that any modern version of Perl would work for my gnump3d [gnump3d.org] app.

          I've not touched it since the Savannah.gnu.org compromise, but I'll have a look over the code and try to test it on a BSD box sometime soon.

  • Just wait... (Score:4, Funny)

    by zulux ( 112259 ) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @01:13PM (#7846724) Homepage Journal


    I hear a port of apt-get is in the works!!!!!

    (kidding)

    • Re:Just wait... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by BrookHarty ( 9119 )
      I'm wondering how the work on merging FreeBSD Ports, Gentoo portage and Fink is coming along. There was an announcement that the groups where working on a Centeralized port systems (Together). 1 ports for every paltform. Then you could apt-get, emerge, pkgadd, rpm, whatever...

      The saved man hours in a centeralized ports system would be amazing.

      • Re:Just wait... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @03:04PM (#7847833) Journal
        The saved man hours in a centeralized ports system would be amazing.

        Even more man-hours would be saved if people wrote in ISO C using only POSIX functionality, without littering their code with Linux-isms, or worse still distribution-specific things. Creating a package is relatively easy once you can make the code compile.

        For something done right, look at Psi [affinix.com]. The same code builds on Linux, *BSD, Solaris, Windows and Mac. When the first Mac version was released, none of the developers even had a Mac (they just compiled it on someone else's machine). This is possible by coding to cross-platform APIs (in the case of Psi, the only dependency is Qt, which runs almost anywhere).

        • So, one should not write GUI apps ? afaik posix doesn't standarize a GUI.
          There is Motif in the SUS specification though..

        • Re:Just wait... (Score:1, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Your suggestion is as useful as suggesting that everyone standardise on a single Unix or a single distribution of Linux. Or a single editor.

          > Even more man-hours would be saved if people wrote
          > in ISO C using only POSIX functionality, without littering
          > their code with Linux-isms, or worse still
          > distribution-specific things. Creating a package is
          > relatively easy once you can make the code compile.
          >
          But wait, POSIX is considered by *some* to be *broken* such as the threads model, handling

        • Re:Just wait... (Score:3, Interesting)

          by stripes ( 3681 )

          Even more man-hours would be saved if people wrote in ISO C using only POSIX functionality, without littering their code with Linux-isms, or worse still distribution-specific things. Creating a package is relatively easy once you can make the code compile.

          If people only used the "standard" interfaces then the 'void' extention to K&R would never have gotten enough widespread use to be included in ANSI. Nobody would use the better select-like interfaces (epoll, kqueue) and we would never find out whi

      • While it's not the merger of FreeBSD Ports, portage and fink, NetBSD [netbsd.org]'s Packages Collection aka pkgsrc [netbsd.org] supports a large number of different operating systems (NetBSD, Darwin, FreeBSD, Irix, Linux, OpenBSD, Solaris), with support for more platforms (BSD/OS, HP-UX, AIX) in the works. Full Documentation here [netbsd.org].
    • I can't wait til emerge gets ported.

      Oh wait.

  • Holy crap!!! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I thought they meant 10,000 ports won't compile any more!! Find the guy that checked in *that* change and SHOOT HIM!

    But, uh, that's not what it means. So congrats guys, I LOVES ME THE FREEBSD PORTS!!!

  • Timeline Summary (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MBCook ( 132727 ) <foobarsoft@foobarsoft.com> on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @01:46PM (#7847065) Homepage
    Timeline summary:

    Time to reach 1000 ports: 30 Months
    Time to reach 2000 ports: 18 Months
    Time to reach 3000 ports: 12 Months
    Time to reach 4000 ports: 10 Months
    Time to reach 5000 ports: 6 Months
    Time to reach 6000 ports: 6 Months
    Time to reach 7000 ports: 6 Months
    Time to reach 8000 ports: 6 Months
    Time to reach 9000 ports: 6 Months
    Time to reach 10000 ports: 6 Months

    Seems development has been rather steady for a while now. I predict 11,000 ports in... 6 months.

  • Is there a good listing of all the ports and what they do?

    I know a script could be written to search /usr/ports/ and cat the pkg-descr file, but is there anything out there a little more user-friendly?

    • Re:Ports (Score:5, Informative)

      by kernelistic ( 160323 ) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @02:21PM (#7847451)
      Here's a good start...
      cd /usr/ports
      make readmes
      You'll want to go grab a sandwhich at this point while it goes through all of the ports and creates their associated readme files. You'll then be able to use your favorite browser to list the ports and their descriptions. The URL you want file:///usr/ports/README.html .

    • Re:Ports (Score:4, Informative)

      by no_l0gic ( 136634 ) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @02:57PM (#7847770) Homepage
      My favorite FreeBSD ports related reference:
      http://www.freshports.org/ [freshports.org]

      News of new/updated ports as well as a searchable index of all ports (and you can navigate the site the same as your ports directory structure).

      Also, on a somewhat related note, you know of the `cd /usr/ports && make search name=blah` or key=blah feature, right?

      Happy New Year! (give or take a TimeZone...)

    • Re:Ports (Score:3, Informative)

      by xA40D ( 180522 )

      Is there a good listing of all the ports and what they do?

      /usr/ports/INDEX

      I know a script could be written to search /usr/ports/ and cat the pkg-descr file, but is there anything out there a little more user-friendly?

      cd /usr/ports/
      make search key=foo

      Or, in answer to both your questions, try the FreeBSD website [freebsd.org]

    • $ lynx /usr/ports/<branch>/<package>/README.html

      I know, monumentally complicated.

      • Well you understand it so I'll assume you are being sarcastic.

        Don't complain about being unfairly modded down when you are a jerk to modders.

  • 10,000 ports... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by cperciva ( 102828 ) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @02:29PM (#7847505) Homepage
    ... and three of them are mine.

    Makes one realize how insignificant one's own contribution is, when one has contributed less than 0.03% of the total.

  • heh. (Score:2)

    by pb ( 1020 )
    Way to go, guys; the comparative newcomer that I use (Gentoo) is only up to 7,167 or so packages!
  • This is how you determine the amount of packages in Portage: # qpkg | wc -l 5930 ;) btw, "emerge gentoolkit" to get qpkg.
  • And yet with 10,015 ports, they STILL don't have the best live traffic monitor from linux... IPTraf.

    The alternatives for freebsd are just garbage in comparison. ifstat is as bland as it gets. trafshow comes close in a few respects but still doesn't touch IPtraf. Where is the "Lan Station Monitor", where are the detailed interface statistics?

    Ntop is not an option, its a for browsers, not the console.

    So many ports, so many contributors, it must be a conscious effort to avoid porting this program. Is

    • would MRTG do everything that iptraf does? i'm thinking that iptraf might be wedded too closely to the linux net implementation .. maybe that's why it hasn't been ported. it's probably not worth porting, but it's worth rewriting to fit the bsd platform. porting sometimes just gets damned hard ... hard enough that rewriting is simple by comparison.
      • mrtg would not come close. For one you need a browser to look at the graphs. And unless your poll time was every second, it wouldn't accomplish the same things. As for porting vs rewriting, maybe it would be easier to rewrite it. If you have access to a linux box, run iptraf on it, look at the lan station monitor, pick the interface. Then try and come up with a solution on par with that for viewing real-time LAN traffic. Who is using what bandwidth at that very moment in time. ("who" could be whatever
    • Heh-heh just emerged that, its good fun to watch as the IP traffic for my SSH line running iptraf flies up with each update.
    • This stems from the author's inability (or he just plain doesn't care) to write cross-platform conforming code. /STOP/ using linux headers in your code, and join the world of ANSI C already. Don't blame *BSD, or shall I begin a tirade about Linux because none of my audio applications written for Windows work in it? Makes just as much sense.

      quote> it'd be nice to add some *new* AND *useful* tools.

      You don't have to rely on ports to install stuff, I have to compile stuff manually quite often, ports is mor

Slashdot Top Deals

Understanding is always the understanding of a smaller problem in relation to a bigger problem. -- P.D. Ouspensky

Close