Slashdot Log In
FreeBSD Ports for GNU/Linux
Posted by
michael
on Fri Sep 21, 2001 01:20 PM
from the thirty-two-tetris-variants-and-counting dept.
from the thirty-two-tetris-variants-and-counting dept.
proclus writes: "GNU-Darwin has provided a special FreeBSD ports tarball (20 Mb) for GNU/Linux users. We have modified the FreeBSD Ports System to bring thousands of free software offerings within the reach of every GNU/Linux user. The system is not fully automated yet, but you can untar it in your home directory and try it. Just follow these directions. This system provides full access to the FreeBSD ports, so that users can compile and install software in their home directories. Root access is not required."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
FreeBSD programs w/in reach of Linux users? (Score:2)
What programs would I seriously want to run that are of FreeBSD fame only? None that I know of.
What do I know though?
Re:FreeBSD programs w/in reach of Linux users? (Score:5, Insightful)
First, I am a real fan of Debian, apt-get, and am running debian both at work and at home.
What the FreeBSD ports system does which is so cool is get rid of the idea of distributing binaries at all. Instead, you go into the subdirectory corresponding to the program you want and type "make install." Based on the skeleton files present the program source(s) and any patches are downloaded, applied, the program is then compiled against whatever libraries you have on your system (no more "this binary requires glibc version Y but you only have X"), and installs the compiled binary. Furthermore, doing so is as easy as installing a
Basically, it combines "apt-get source --compile; dpkg -i [new-packages].deb" into "make install," and simplifies the package management/dependency management.
BSD ports is IMHO the only software management system that in some ways exceeds even debian's approach, but keep in mind there are conceptual differences to the approach (all things source vs. precompiled binaries), so it isn't entirely an apples to apples comparison.
What is GNU/Linux? (Score:1, Funny)
GNU/Linux (Score:5, Funny)
RPM for the people? (Score:1)
That would typically take at least a week and over 20gig total, but it is worthwhile to do.
A week? Well, maybe it's time for that vacation...
Oh well (Score:1)
But then, the FreeBSD port/package system is still the best one I've ever had the pleasure to work with, especially because of its good source/binary interoperability.
Open Packages (Score:2, Informative)
Sounds nice to me (Score:1)
To tell the truth I've never used *BSD ports. I hear a lot that they are wonderful. I don't know how it works, but I'm sure that I'll try it.
The only thing I hope is that they let every choices to me. I use slackware and tarballs for one reason: the word automatic have been sounding weird for me.
Since I got tired of Mandrake and rpm automatic for me means this:
Hope not to find this kind of automation with ports.
Ports++ = Gentoo (Score:1)
It supports stuff like profiles, etc so by editing a few text files you can define your which specific packages and versions should be installed, etc (basically define your own distro
Definatly check them out, there is no other distribution or OS quite like it!
BTW, the url is http://www.gentoo.org
Can someone explain why I would want this? (Score:2)
gentoo linux (Score:1)
It's about time.... (Score:1)
...and then (oops, here comes the conspiracy theory) after said Linux users like the ports system, they will stop using Linux and start using BSD...(yea yea, shuddup, it's humor).
*yaay*
Porting ports.. (Score:2)
But let me see if I've got this right...the FreeBSD ports tree is a port of Linux/nonBSD-UNIX based software (mostly Linux based) to FreeBSD, and now someone has taken it and ported it back to Linux...heh.
(Okay, okay, I realize it's the actual ports tree system which is being ported, but still...
Its all about the Debians (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, how is this better than Rock [rocklinux.org] Linux?
Rock's package management system is source based, and updates, etc...
And as for elitism, I spoke with the creater on the phone a few years ago when he was starting it, and he's a really jolly bloke.
GNU Darwin != GNU / Linux (Score:1)
http://www.gentoo.org (Score:1)
In fact the lates rc has a new dependancy based init as well. And it's always loaded with the latest apps and libraries.
I was a long time debian weenie untill I found gentoo. Now there's no turning back.
Local users vs. Root (Score:1)
<doubletake / >
That's right, you can have that IRC client of your VERY OWN! I hadn't realized that the ports system did this. On the box that I control, I add new software all the time. (apt-get install this-that-and-the-kitchen-sink)
As much as apt-get rocks, however, you've pretty much gotta be root, and it likes to install things in system-wide locations. So my friend Eugene who really likes links better than lynx has to come ask me to install it, or compile it from source by hand.
They have solved the problem of software management on a multi-user system, at least when the source is available. Keep in mind that one of the things that has made NT 4.0 horrible to deal with for a large number of people is this very thing. su is your friend.
Are you an administrator? Oh, well, you can't install this, because it wants to write a registry key HERE and it's not supposed to want to do that. Reboot, become Admin, install, return to being user - maybe software works, maybe it doesn't. (It's not _that_ bad with linux/deb or rpm.)
AFAIK (IANA Debian God) there is no way to get apt-get to install things in an automated way in the user's home directory. Sure, you can get the source there.. But the really cool thing would be if, not running as root, you ran apt-get and it installed everything in your home directory except that which was already on the system!
Ooooo... this is cool. Then, when root tries to install the same thing, maybe it could check the signature of the package the local user has downloaded and install it systemwide if the signature matches the one from the debian repository. <div voice="hick">Hee-HEE! Hawt damn!</div>
what's so hard anyways? (Score:1)
1) untar
2) vi README
3) make test (usually)
4) make config
5) make install
Is that really that hard for joe-user... or will they look at step 2) and panic? "Oh my god, there's instructions... I can't possibly read those and follow them!".
If you don't like soup, stay out of the kitchen.
q:]
MadCow.
Gentoo and the Portage Based Linux Distro (Score:3, Interesting)
One use of a Linux distro like Gentoo would be to add a user-friend-idiot-proof OS installer that plug-n-play auto detects everything about your hardware, from the exact CPU type, MB type, memory type, graphics card, sound, etc... and then keep that system specific info in a local database. After this part of the installation, and for the rest of the life of the system, whenever you install ANY application on your system, the software is automatically optimized and compiled for your specific setup. Applications could be optimized for your CPU-type and the amount of RAM that you have. Maybe even your video card and sound card could be taken into consideration. If you don't have a sound card, any references to sound could be compiled out of the application. If your video card only supports 256 colors, then perhaps, the desired application could automatically be optimized for such a platform.
This would allow application developers to program with a greater assumed knowledge of the end user's system, and it would make it easier for the end user to have a totally tweaked out Linux setup, apps and all! Not to mention the fact that the Gentoo Portage system deals with dependencies automatically, furthur easing end user headaches.
Closed source simply couldn't compete with such a Linux distro because closed source software (Windows for example) is compiled for the average hardware setup, which sacrifices performance for generality, while a Gentoo based Linux Distro could automatically reconfigure itself to tighly fit your exact hardware setup, which keeps generality and great performance.
Increased Cooperation Is Good For Both Camps (Score:3, Interesting)
Demonstrate strong interoperability but still have a choice what OS you want to run (*BSD, Linux, MacOSX, etc).
Increase availability of all kinds of software and toolkits between almost all of the anti-MS players.
Accellerate development for both platforms by encouraging developers to optimize their software for both camps.
:)
Now this is a lot to say for such a rudimentary project (and I'm sure the list could go on), but the ideals are there. Imagine if we had increased/improved interoperability between the KDE and GNOME projects (instead of a lot of bitching about the other "sucking ass"). Say, tools that helped unify the appearance of widgets, code sharing layers, and so on.
So, wordiness aside, unity is good.
Great! (Score:1)
But,
*puts on flame proof suit*
What does this change? From what I have heard, the software in FreeBSD is hard to use, lame, feature poor, etc..
What does this change in the world of lets say 99% of desktop users? Yes, I know that people here love Linux, and love seeing application being ported on the platform.
But is this innovative? Or just reinventing the wheel in a brilliant but useless way?
The collective Linux brains should be coding something to convert the Windoze through sheer abundance of feature.
You have heard this before. Make it simple. I am smart. But not everyone is. As much as I love going into Mandrake to do thing, it is all too true. Linux is still an obstacle to productivity for average people.
Does FreeBSD change this? Somehow I don't think so.
Aiming for new features, innovation and simplicity. The architecture of Linux is well capable of handling these.
And yes I am leaving my flame proof suit on..
;) (Score:1)
no, not really
Why Ports is Better (Score:1)
I'm a huge NetBSD fan, myself. Go look at how many platforms it runs on and you'll see why this makes sense. As a software developer, I only have to, for the most part, try my application on one system and it's available to all. Sure, I can write something that's big endian specific, or won't run in 64-bit mode, but then each one of those problems can be fixed and portability is restored, in one place.
I've been amazed at how well this has worked out on my multiple NetBSD platforms at home. If it could do the same for multiple operating systems, that would be great for everyone.
Even on a single machine, it gives you a great deal of flexibility. For example, I don't update my pkgsrc and ports trees, I just get them out of AFS on demand from public AFS servers that update them periodically. Now, even if I did have write access to the AFS servers for building, that'd be slow an irresponsible, so I have it build everything in a tmp directory. Don't like where it installs things? Tell it to install third-part packages somewhere else (such as a platform-specific AFS volume). Got a lot of the identical machines? ``make package'' will make a binary package you can install in a platform-specific directory rather than you having to do the same fetches and builds in multiple places.
It's a powerful system, and will hopefully get more people looking at systems other than Linux on a PC. Maybe next time I try Linux on an Alpha, or some other hardware, I won't feel so alienated.
Ports is a different kind of distrabution. (Score:1)
FreeBSD (as w/ other BSD) has the advantage of having a single distribution, so packages listed in ports can contain distro specific patches. Hence, all the work going into FreeBSD weather it be the Base system or the apps is compounded togeter in a central repository.
Linux is not so lucky. The different linux distibutions all have different file heirarchys (yah, there are "standards" . . but that doesnt mean they're followed). Each distribution also has it's own package distribution method. This is a problem for ports.
On my FreeBSD system, ports allows me to grap the source, add my own optomization and other compile/configure time flags, and have the perfect package. It doesn't just randmly install the stuff, it packages it up first (see pkg-plist file), and then installs it. This is great, because weather you choose to use the binary package, or the port, there's no dependency problems.
If you install the Linux-Ports on your Debian/Redhat/Mandrake system, and install something, and later try to install an official package, your going to have dependency problems. You'll be forced to install the "official" version of the program, and you lose the advantage of ports.
Even if the Linux-Ports stuff was able to detect your distro, build the appropriate type of package, and then install it, you've strayed from the central distro chain. Debian (apt), RedHat (up2date), and Mandrake (I dunno what it's called) have their own centralized package systems, and will detect that your package differs from the latest one on the server. Your ports package gets overwritten, and your screwed again.
Ports would be great for Linux, but I dont think it will happen unless some distro decides to add it to their standard distro . . . Long live FreeBSD.
...and then there was one (Score:1)
We all know how similar most protestant religions are. Some of the major ones (at least in the US) have recognized this too and have decided to merge (or re-merge, as they may have once been unified in the past) The thought is that perhaps it is not important how each one intreprets some arcane symbolism and which intrepretation is better. What is important is that they both have essentially the same message and the same goal. (Forgive my oversimplication of this, and sorry if I don't even remember what the names of the two religions are that I referred to earlier.)
Likewise with the various flavors of what is essentially Unix. You've all mentioned what your favorite method of software distribution is and have stated why this is so. Perhaps someday you'll see how pointless it is to bicker about the subtle differences and you'll work towards a common goal of reunifying the factions into a cohesive force which will probably be called Unix. Through this process, perhaps you will learn how similar it is and that by only focusing on the differences, you are forgetting your common goal and your original message. Quite frankly, I don't know what your message is, because I am relatively new to this world, having dabbled with these wickedly time consuming things we call computers since appx. 1980. I can say one thing: those working on the UI aspect of *nix seem to have a more clearly stated goal and have more successfully avoided the traps of constant infighting that seems typical of you plumbing guys. You could learn from them.
So, in some ways, these discussions are one way to essentially recognize that what makes you different is actually what makes you similar, and therein lies your power. Just don't lose sight of your common goal, whatever it might be.
More to the point of this discussion, I have probably dabbled with everything that has been discussed here. My most successful experiment as been Gentoo Linux, but that's only because I took the time to actually read the instructions on what to do, and was able to overcome the incredibly stupid mistakes that were made in the documentation that so many have stated isn't rocket science. Rocket science is useless if the rocket you build can't get off the ground. What good is it if you end up putting wheels on it and use it to drive from San Francisco to LA?
Debian's apt-get is fabulous but quite frankly the whole Debian thing reminds me too much of Scientology. No, actually it reminds me more of Amway. Of course apt-get is simple and the only way because that is what you get with Debian. No negativity here. You agreed to the Debian Social Contract, and therefore you must abide by that agreement. There is no other way.
Conectiva Linux has to be the best distribution to co-opt the structured order of Debian with the freewheeling rpm methodology. I think it is closes to realizing that you can have your cake and eat it too. Naturally, if there is a way to override rpm's safeguards, then don't give some poor new user such hell because they forced a package in. Afterall, you gave them the tool to do it by leaving in a back door. Conectiva has probably figured out that human nature is what it is, so help them by giving a bit more order to their "sin." The alternative is frustration on the users part, so why not just realize that to sin IS the norm and people will be people. I think what they have done is said there are more ways to achieve the same thing, and most users don't give a crap about any of them. They just want the end result, no sermon, no dogma, no eternal pain and suffering. Just give them what they want with minimum frustration and be happy that their systems are still stable and functional. Let them have the goddess, just call her Mary and incorporate her into your dogma. Let them have their midwinter rituals and their multiple deities. Just split your one diety into three different ones (God the father, God the son, and God the holy ghost). There is room for all of it, but always remember why you are here and not there. Otherwise, you won't be anywhere pretty quickly.
Sorry, this message has meandered everywhere across the map and often off of it entirely. But, I also want to take a minute to thank each and every one of you. This entire movement, whether you call it the FSF, GNU/Linux, KDE, Gnome, whatever. I am in awe of the energy and talent that has brought you this far in such a short time. No company can possibly ever hope to accomplish this in the same manner. Let it be both a compliement and warning to you that IBM and other biggies have recognized this. Just remember: the devil knows the bible frontwards and backwards.
My hats off to all of you. Keep those flames agoin and keep the fire hot!
Jack Greenwood
San Francisco
GGOKTHXBYE (Score:1)
I always wondered... (Score:1)
I'm only gonna say this once (Score:3, Informative)
gentoo uses something very much like ports, though it doesn't use make, but a python utility called emerge instead. i would hope to see it use SCons in the future, and get the best of both worlds -- it might even be enough to get me to switch back to linux (once it stops having a VM bug of the week)
wonder if this'll get bsd more attention (Score:1)
Where? (Score:1)
It's the apps, dude! (Score:2)
Forget GNU. Forget Linux. Forget BSD. Forget Microsoft.
Just use the system that best fits your needs. This may mean that your pet OS is not a universal fit for someone else.
That's what this is ABOUT!
The OS and the applications are separate entities. This is a port of the applications so they'll compile and run identically, from a common source base, on both BSDs and Linux. This makes them tweakable on Linux or a BSD, and so on.
Once this is fully done you'll be able to have a common environment across the (unix-like) OS spectrum. Pull out the OS and swap in another, and it won't matter. So you'll be able to pick or change the OS to meet your needs for *OS* performance, hackability, or special feature set, without having to switch to a different set of applications just because you changed the platform under them.
Re:Just get it over with (Score:1)
I know when I migrated from SuSe to FreeBSD, some of my stuff didn't work right so I had to waste time changing it so that it did work right. However now that I have everything working correctly under FreeBSD there is almost no way in hell I will go back to any of the Linux distros (unless there was an EXTREME incentive to go back, which i doubt will ever happen).
If someone can come up with a reason why these ports are a waste of time i would really like to know. Until then I will lump them with the other stuff in my 'good things' catagory of software ideas. Also, if someone can come up with a VALID reason why Linux is a better operating system for me to be using, I would really like to know it as well.
Re:GNU/DARWIN is BSD, not Linux! (Score:1)
What is GNU/Darwin?
Regards,
proclus
Re:gnu darwin (Score:1)
Regards,
proclus