Want FreeBSD's ports system in a Linux distro
Arcady Genkin
similar to *BSD's ports under any Linux distro? IMHO, that system
makes a lot of sense, and I'd love to have a distro that adopts it.
Also, is there a Linux distro that allows easy complete rebuild of the
whole system from sources?
This is a bit OT, but given Slackware is the closest Linux distro to
BDS, I decided to post it here.
--
Arcady Genkin http://www.thpoon.com
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
Allen Wong
>
> Have there been discussions of creating a package management system
> similar to *BSD's ports under any Linux distro? IMHO, that system
> makes a lot of sense, and I'd love to have a distro that adopts it.
>
> Also, is there a Linux distro that allows easy complete rebuild of the
> whole system from sources?
>
> This is a bit OT, but given Slackware is the closest Linux distro to
> BDS, I decided to post it here.
I know this may be considered heresy, but why not just use FreeBSD? It
is quite nice and if Slackware didn't exist, I'd probably be using it.
Allen
--
Linux: If you're not careful, you might actually learn something.
2:00pm up 63 days, 23:11, 1 user, load average: 2.00, 2.00, 2.00
Allen Wong
>
> I am using FreeBSD on my firewall computer. I tried it on my desktop
> as well, but there are a few applications that aren't ported to
> FreeBSD yet, so I had to revert to Linux.
>
> I was struck by FreeBSD's organization, and miss it a lot whenever I
> use any Linux packaging system.
I've never tried it (being a purist), but have you tried setting up
FreeBSD to run Linux binaries?
Allen
--
Linux: If you're not careful, you might actually learn something.
9:00pm up 64 days, 6:11, 1 user, load average: 2.00, 2.00, 2.00
Arcady Genkin
> > Have there been discussions of creating a package management system
> > similar to *BSD's ports under any Linux distro? IMHO, that system
> > makes a lot of sense, and I'd love to have a distro that adopts it.
> >
> > Also, is there a Linux distro that allows easy complete rebuild of the
> > whole system from sources?
> >
> > This is a bit OT, but given Slackware is the closest Linux distro to
> > BDS, I decided to post it here.
>
> I know this may be considered heresy, but why not just use FreeBSD? It
> is quite nice and if Slackware didn't exist, I'd probably be using it.
I am using FreeBSD on my firewall computer. I tried it on my desktop
as well, but there are a few applications that aren't ported to
FreeBSD yet, so I had to revert to Linux.
I was struck by FreeBSD's organization, and miss it a lot whenever I
use any Linux packaging system.
Jeremy Crabtree
[SNIP]
>Also, is there a Linux distro that allows easy complete rebuild of the
>whole system from sources?
Ever tried... SlackBuild ? It's a neat feature of Slackware, it will
build, from course, pretty much the entire distro.
[SNIP]
--
"The UNIX philosophy is to provide some scraps of metal and an enormous
roll of duct tape. With those -- and possibly some scraps of your own
-- you can conquer the world." -- G. Sumner Hayes
Courtney
>Have there been discussions of creating a package management system
>similar to *BSD's ports under any Linux distro? IMHO, that system
>makes a lot of sense, and I'd love to have a distro that adopts it.
>
>whole system from sources?
>
>BDS, I decided to post it here.
Debian. Nothing else comes close IMO.
It has a "dselect" manager that automates downloading and installing
dpackages as easy as FreeBSD "ports". It even tells you what conflict
may arise and finds the needed support packages to install
It can be set to use http, ftp or cd or all
I started from the slackware world, loving the control you have in it.
I was horrified of Redcrap when I had to use it.
Even though Debian has some Redcrap kernel source, you still have control
just as you do in slackware.
--
Courtney Spencer
Arcady Genkin
> >Also, is there a Linux distro that allows easy complete rebuild of the
> >whole system from sources?
>
> Ever tried... SlackBuild ? It's a neat feature of Slackware, it will
> build, from course, pretty much the entire distro.
No. This sounds interesting. Where would I read about it?
Arcady Genkin
> I've never tried it (being a purist), but have you tried setting up
> FreeBSD to run Linux binaries?
Yes, but if I understand correctly, some things won't work at
device-driver level. Such as cdparanoia, for instance.
Allen Wong
>
> Debian. Nothing else comes close IMO.
> It has a "dselect" manager that automates downloading and installing
> dpackages as easy as FreeBSD "ports". It even tells you what conflict
> may arise and finds the needed support packages to install
> It can be set to use http, ftp or cd or all
Isn't "dselect" or "dpkg" more akin to the "pkg_add" in FreeBSD? As I
understand it, "dpkg" and "dselect" just installs the binaries, whereas
the BSD ports actually get and compile the source for you.
Allen
--
Linux: If you're not careful, you might actually learn something.
5:00am up 64 days, 14:11, 1 user, load average: 2.00, 2.00, 2.00
Allen Wong
>
> Allen Wong <ama...@linuxfan.com> writes:
>
> > I've never tried it (being a purist), but have you tried setting up
> > FreeBSD to run Linux binaries?
>
> Yes, but if I understand correctly, some things won't work at
> device-driver level. Such as cdparanoia, for instance.
Ah, didn't think of that.
Courtney
>Courtney wrote:
>>
>> Debian. Nothing else comes close IMO.
>> It has a "dselect" manager that automates downloading and installing
>> dpackages as easy as FreeBSD "ports". It even tells you what conflict
>> may arise and finds the needed support packages to install
>> It can be set to use http, ftp or cd or all
>
>Isn't "dselect" or "dpkg" more akin to the "pkg_add" in FreeBSD? As I
>understand it, "dpkg" and "dselect" just installs the binaries, whereas
>the BSD ports actually get and compile the source for you.
>
>--
>Linux: If you're not careful, you might actually learn something.
>
> 5:00am up 64 days, 14:11, 1 user, load average: 2.00, 2.00, 2.00
True, Debian does not have a package system of sources.
dselect does however automate the task of installing the way
"make install" in a ports directory does on FreeBSD.
With dselect you select packages from a description list,
and just as ports goes out and gets the necessary support files,
dselect will list support files needed and list any conflicts (if any)
before you select them. It then runs dpkg -i for each package
it finds and allows you to configure them.
Also you can keep an up-to-date list of packages for dselect
sort of the way you would cvs co the ports list.
--
Courtney Spencer
Thomas T. Veldhouse
to develop kernel code - good luck on FreeBSD. Even if you get an answer on
where to start (and they are stingy about that - the core team might be
threatened by too many kernel developers). There is no kernel docs for
FreeBSD. Also, the hardware support under Linux is much more thorough.
FreeBSD seems to be changing their driver architecture every release. They
are going to lose all vendor support if they aren't careful. Linux was
written with a much more modular approach - and its interfaces don't change
that drastically from version to version. Too bad we can't use UFS instead
of ext2!
I too would like to see the FreeBSD ports system in the Linux world. I have
considered it - but you really need a great script and Makefile writer. The
ports system is almost entirely built upon a Makefile source base.
Tom Veldhouse
ve...@visi.com
Allen Wong <ama...@linuxfan.com> wrote in message
news:38975F89...@linuxfan.com...
> Arcady Genkin wrote:
> >
> > Have there been discussions of creating a package management system
> > similar to *BSD's ports under any Linux distro? IMHO, that system
> > makes a lot of sense, and I'd love to have a distro that adopts it.
> >
> > Also, is there a Linux distro that allows easy complete rebuild of the
> > whole system from sources?
> >
> > This is a bit OT, but given Slackware is the closest Linux distro to
> > BDS, I decided to post it here.
>
> I know this may be considered heresy, but why not just use FreeBSD? It
> is quite nice and if Slackware didn't exist, I'd probably be using it.
>
> Allen
> --
> Linux: If you're not careful, you might actually learn something.
>
> 2:00pm up 63 days, 23:11, 1 user, load average: 2.00, 2.00, 2.00
Thomas T. Veldhouse
optimized for the i386. What about the Pentium or better? There is a
significant performance increase if you optimize for your CPU. With just a
couple of commands - I can build a FreeBSD-4.0 current system optimized for
the pentium-pro (best you can do with gcc-2.85.2 and binutils-2.9.1.x).
Also, Slackbuild is not really maintainable via CVS like FBSD ports.
Lastly, the FBSD ports collection will fetch the sources via ftp or http
when not found locally and apply patches and compile for you. Slackbuild is
quite limited in that respect.
The CVS tree for FBSD is completely open (for read) and thus you can be as
current as you like. With Slackware - you must wait for the developers to
release their changes. You always have the option to stick with a release
and patch if you want to stick to that route.
Basically, I would love to see a FreeLinux.
Tom Veldhouse
ve...@visi.com
Jeremy Crabtree <Jer...@TMBG.org> wrote in message
news:slrn89i2ei....@Tick.ItMightBeAServer.net...
> Arcady Genkin allegedly wrote:
>
> [SNIP]
>
> >Also, is there a Linux distro that allows easy complete rebuild of the
> >whole system from sources?
>
> Ever tried... SlackBuild ? It's a neat feature of Slackware, it will
> build, from course, pretty much the entire distro.
>
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Courtney <cspe...@mindspring.net> wrote in message > Debian. Nothing else
comes close IMO.
> It has a "dselect" manager that automates downloading and installing
> dpackages as easy as FreeBSD "ports". It even tells you what conflict
> may arise and finds the needed support packages to install
> It can be set to use http, ftp or cd or all
>
But will it download and build/compile the entire system and ports? Via
CVS?
That is what the folks that have used FreeBSD want. An entire base system
source tree. Simple packages be damned. RPM and dpkg can go. Build from
ports.
Tom Veldhouse
ve...@visi.com
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Yggsdrasil <jrpX...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3898E61F...@worldnet.att.net...
> I hope nobody minds my input I'm just trying to follow logic and
> contribute. :)
> Ok you want a package system to load sources and install them for a
> (Slackware) Linux system.
> Problem is:
> problem solution?
> Search for source. perl?TCL(bot)?
Perl would be great - but only if you want it as a mandatory part of your
base system. Perhaps a binary combined with a shell script would suit this
case a little better.
> Authenticate site. ssh?
Why not anonymous ftp or http, no reason to care if the site is secure
because you can check the file when you get it.
> Retrieve file. wget?
of a simply ftp.
> Check integrity. Not sure how for sources.
check the MD5 checksum against the tarball. This is what FreeBSD does and
it works wonderfully.
> Install locally. Looks like someone already said he could
> with SlackBuild.
Except slackbuild is way to rigid. CVS based solution would be more fun
too.
>
> And a lot of persistence, ingenuity, and elbow grease.
Lots - and good scripting - a week spot of mine
>
> One reason I am posting is that I notice in Slackware some programs
> will not install if you have not done -
>
> make mrproper
> make config
Hmm? What are you talking about here? An example?
>
> Implacating that machine dependent variables are set in the config.h
> file
This is usually generated by the configure script which in turn is generated
by autoconf and family. All this can be patched as necessary. The ports
collection would have local patches and the URL to download the virgin
source with.
>
> I am also assuming that SlackBuild can parse and utilize config.h from
> the
> linux source file.
Again, Hmm? Slackbuild is usually just a "simple" shell script that passes
parameters to `configure` and sometimes patches the source. Then it just
builds and installs via `make all install` or whatever.
Tom Veldhouse
ve...@visi.com
Yggsdrasil
>
> Yggsdrasil <jrpX...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:3898E61F...@worldnet.att.net...
> > I hope nobody minds my input I'm just trying to follow logic and
> > contribute. :)
> > Ok you want a package system to load sources and install them for a
> > (Slackware) Linux system.
> > Problem is:
>
> > problem solution?
> > Search for source. perl?TCL(bot)?
> Perl would be great - but only if you want it as a mandatory part of your
> base system. Perhaps a binary combined with a shell script would suit this
> case a little better.
> > Authenticate site. ssh?
> Why not anonymous ftp or http, no reason to care if the site is secure
> because you can check the file when you get it.
The source files are so large and much of the archtecture dependent
portions are not needed locally. If you want the full source available
locally this is OK.
> > Retrieve file. wget?
> of a simply ftp.
>
> > Check integrity. Not sure how for sources.
> check the MD5 checksum against the tarball. This is what FreeBSD does and
> it works wonderfully.
>
> > Install locally. Looks like someone already said he could
> > with SlackBuild.
> Except slackbuild is way to rigid. CVS based solution would be more fun
> too.
>
> >
> > And a lot of persistence, ingenuity, and elbow grease.
> Lots - and good scripting - a week spot of mine
>
> >
> > One reason I am posting is that I notice in Slackware some programs
> > will not install if you have not done -
> >
> > make mrproper
> > make config
> Hmm? What are you talking about here? An example?
nmap. I think portsentry or logchck was another.
The local workstation/server's .config file has all the info needed
to know what portions of the tar.gz(source) to retrieve.
>
> >
> > Implacating that machine dependent variables are set in the config.h
> > file
> This is usually generated by the configure script which in turn is generated
> by autoconf and family. All this can be patched as necessary. The ports
> collection would have local patches and the URL to download the virgin
> source with.
>
> >
> > I am also assuming that SlackBuild can parse and utilize config.h from
> > the
> > linux source file.
> Again, Hmm? Slackbuild is usually just a "simple" shell script that passes
> parameters to `configure` and sometimes patches the source. Then it just
> builds and installs via `make all install` or whatever.
Ok
Arthur and Melissa Johnson
>
> Arcady Genkin wrote:
> >
> > Have there been discussions of creating a package management system
> > similar to *BSD's ports under any Linux distro? IMHO, that system
> > makes a lot of sense, and I'd love to have a distro that adopts it.
> >
> > whole system from sources?
> >
> > BDS, I decided to post it here.
>
> I know this may be considered heresy, but why not just use FreeBSD? It
> is quite nice and if Slackware didn't exist, I'd probably be using it.
>
> Allen
> --
> Linux: If you're not careful, you might actually learn something.
>
> 2:00pm up 63 days, 23:11, 1 user, load average: 2.00, 2.00, 2.00
Because FreeBSD is not as "friendly" as Linuxes probably. I tried to use
it but it does not support ATAPI CD-R's. Linux is just simple while
staying powerful. Don't get me wrong, I love FreeBSD, but not nearly as
much as Linux.
--
Arthur H. Johnson II art...@tucows.com
Tucows Linux Manager http://linux.tucows.com
Tucows BSD Manager COMING SOON!
--
"The C Programming Language -- A language which combines the
flexibility of assembly language with the power of assembly language."
Arthur and Melissa Johnson
>
> Arcady Genkin allegedly wrote:
> >Jer...@TMBG.org (Jeremy Crabtree) writes:
> >
> >> >Also, is there a Linux distro that allows easy complete rebuild of the
> >> >whole system from sources?
> >>
> >> build, from course, pretty much the entire distro.
> >
>
>
> (I built and installed 3.6 this way...'twas interesting)
>
> --
> "The UNIX philosophy is to provide some scraps of metal and an enormous
> roll of duct tape. With those -- and possibly some scraps of your own
> -- you can conquer the world." -- G. Sumner Hayes
BUT this does not register with the package management system does it?
Also, does it contain all the software available for Linux? This would
be a big CD, but the ports collection ONLY contains makefiles and
patches, no actuall source, this is retrieved from an FTP site.
Jeremy Crabtree
>Jeremy Crabtree wrote:
>>
>> Arcady Genkin allegedly wrote:
>> >Jer...@TMBG.org (Jeremy Crabtree) writes:
>> >
>> >> >Also, is there a Linux distro that allows easy complete rebuild of the
>> >> >whole system from sources?
>> >>
>> >> Ever tried... SlackBuild ? It's a neat feature of Slackware, it will
>> >> build, from course, pretty much the entire distro.
>> >
>> >No. This sounds interesting. Where would I read about it?
>>
>> It's on the CDs, if you have 'em. It's also on the FTP site.
>>
>> (I built and installed 3.6 this way...'twas interesting)
>
Yes, it does. Once everything is compiled, you use pkgtool to install it.
>Also, does it contain all the software available for Linux?
All that comes with Slackware.
> This would
>be a big CD, but the ports collection ONLY contains makefiles and
>patches, no actuall source, this is retrieved from an FTP site.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
/usr/share/examples/atapi or /usr/share/examples/worm I believe.
They use a program called wormcontrol which is usually run by a wrapper
script called burncd.sh (which wraps wormcontrol and team).
If you are using CURRENT, then they have a new program called burncd, which
is not simply a shell script. It replaces the use of wormcontrol. It has
not worked so well for me yet - but then again - that is CURRENT and still
in development.
Tom Veldhouse
ve...@visi.com
Arthur and Melissa Johnson <art...@tucows.com> wrote in message
news:38A609F5...@tucows.com...
> Allen Wong wrote:
> >
> > Arcady Genkin wrote:
> > >
> > > Have there been discussions of creating a package management system
> > > similar to *BSD's ports under any Linux distro? IMHO, that system
> > > makes a lot of sense, and I'd love to have a distro that adopts it.
> > >
> > > Also, is there a Linux distro that allows easy complete rebuild of the
> > > whole system from sources?
> > >
> > > This is a bit OT, but given Slackware is the closest Linux distro to
> > > BDS, I decided to post it here.
> >
> > I know this may be considered heresy, but why not just use FreeBSD? It
> > is quite nice and if Slackware didn't exist, I'd probably be using it.
> >
> > Allen
> > --
> > Linux: If you're not careful, you might actually learn something.
> >
> > 2:00pm up 63 days, 23:11, 1 user, load average: 2.00, 2.00, 2.00
>
> Because FreeBSD is not as "friendly" as Linuxes probably. I tried to use
> it but it does not support ATAPI CD-R's. Linux is just simple while
> staying powerful. Don't get me wrong, I love FreeBSD, but not nearly as
> much as Linux.