Disk space after fresh install on eeepc

P

psic

Hi!

New to freesb FreeBSD, I use my old Asus EEEPC 901 to test FreeBSD, after many years with all kind of Linux.

EEEPC :
SSD 1 : 4GB
SSD 2 : 16 GB

I do the install fine like this:
SSD 1 : boot partition and /
SSD2 : swap and /usr/home.

I've just installed xorg, and I have no free space. I just want to have a minum install with an internet browser on an mimimal wm (spectrwm) and vlc.

Main disk usage is with /usr/ports and /usr/local (more than 900 Mb each) with only xorg.

What did I do wrong ?
 
Yeah, you're probably better off using packages. Building ports takes a lot of space. And I very much doubt 4 GB is enough to house a full desktop.
 
psic said:
Main disk usage is with /usr/ports and /usr/local (more than 900 Mb each) with only xorg.
Click to expand...

The ports tree contains hundreds of thousands of files, and when building a port the source code archive gets downloaded to /usr/ports/distfiles. It will eat up space rapidly. /usr/local is where applications are installed. Check the hier(7) man page for more info on the filesystem layout.

SirDice said:
And I very much doubt 4 GB is enough to house a full desktop.
Click to expand...
It's plenty for what the OP is looking for (x11-wm/spectrwm and some minimal applications).
 
I 've just had a look on my girlfriend's eeepc with Ubuntu (LXDE flavour) full install, and it's less than 3GB.
I think a very simple FreeBSD install with few applications will be lighter.
Can I just remove all the ports folder (rm *) ?
 
psic said:
Can I just remove all the ports folder (rm *) ?
Click to expand...

Yes, it won't hurt anything. Then just use the package manager to install your applications.

Two things to be aware of: first, pkg(8) is not installed by default, so the first time you run the command pkg will be downloaded and installed; and second, the default configuration in /etc/pkg/FreeBSD.conf uses the "quarterly," rather than the "latest" repository. The "quarterly" repository remains static for three months at a time, receiving only security and bug fix updates, while the "latest" repository is rolling-release.
 
thanks.
I already use pkg.
Rolling release is more space consuming than quaterly repository ?
Last question, I guess using ports instead of pkg give you fastest application ?
 
psic said:
Rolling release is more space consuming than quaterly repository ?
Click to expand...
They're probably about the same. The only difference is the exact version of the packages. As ANOKNUSA mentioned it's only updated every three months or for specific security issues.

Last question, I guess using ports instead of pkg give you fastest application ?
Click to expand...
No, it'll be the same. Packages are built from ports. Actually, building a port involves creating a package and it's the package that gets installed. So there's no real difference between the two.
 
psic said:
Main disk usage is with /usr/ports and /usr/local (more than 900 Mb each) with only xorg.
Click to expand...

Try the x11-servers/xorg-server or x11/xorg-minimal metaports, they are far lighter.

The x11/xorg metaport is very comprehensive but rather large - a good one to install when disk space is plentiful because many ports for X forget to specify all dependencies and assume everyone installs the xorg port.

The disadvantage of using one of the two skinnier metaports is that you might find the odd port complaining for missing dependencies... just run these from a terminal inside your X session and see what it wants then install it manually.

A tip to figure out how much each port weighs: Actually look at the output of pkg install rather than just using -y and it will tell you the required disk space including dependencies that aren't already installed.

Slightly OTT but x11-servers/xorg-vfbserver is another good one if you just want the least possible to run an X session on a headless machine (e.g for VLC to a server)... usually for slightly esoteric purposes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
tomxor said:
Try the xorg-server or xorg-minimal metaports, they are far lighter.
Click to expand...

Do this if you know how to configure a minimal X environment the way you like it. It's likely neither of those ports will work on its own---neither installs things like startx or any graphics drivers. If you don't want to mess with figuring out a minimal configuration, just install x11/xorg--it doesn't take up much space at all.
 
I guess it's harder but doesn't require loads of work, remember Xorg config is usually completely automatic these days. It also makes a lot of sense if you are using a minimal desktop environment or window manager.

ANOKNUSA is correct, on their own those ports don't work, however you only need a couple more very tiny ports in addition to your lightweight WM or DE... For a simple WM only setup I explicitly install x11-servers/xorg-server, x11/xinit and x11/xauth then depending on the machine some video-driver. X config is automatic, I only need to write a one line xinitrc for my WM.

Of course if you install a whole load of dependency heavy X apps then it wont make a slight bit of difference, try to avoid "gnome-foo" if you care because they usually pull down most of gnome and xorg. I'm not saying this makes sense for everyone or every purpose just that it's possible with little work if you prefer it.
 
ANOKNUSA said:
Do this if you know how to configure a minimal X environment the way you like it. It's likely neither of those ports will work on its own---neither installs things like startx or any graphics drivers. If you don't want to mess with figuring out a minimal configuration, just install x11/xorg--it doesn't take up much space at all.
Click to expand...

It seems (but I may be wrong) it comes with lot of dependencies. I try xorg-minimal, and after a little font problem, all go right. I have some light stuff to choose, like browser, file browser and video player, etc.
 
psic said:
It seems (but I may be wrong) it comes with lot of dependencies.
Click to expand...
It does, but they are part of Xorg. We have seen multiple people here in the forums who can't get something to work, even though it works for everyone else. Then it turns out they installed x11/xorg-minimal, thinking it was a "lightweight" version of Xorg. It's not, it is just a few of the most basic parts of Xorg. Fine for people who are into that and prepared to deal with missing components, but not what the typical person expects.
 
wblock@ said:
...prepared to deal with missing components, but not what the typical person expects.
Click to expand...

What you are suggesting is of course practical for the current state of how ports work... but to me this just highlights how poorly dependencies are defined for some ports. Ideally it should be absolutely fine to start off with the minimum required to run an x-server and build up other dependencies automatically as necessary. I suppose this has more to do with the process of rigorously determining those dependencies rather than settling for "what works for common installs".

Sorry - that's more of another debate i suppose, you've highlighted the main issue with the minimal approach. Personally i've only had 3 ports on FreeBSD complain about missing X dependencies which isn't too painful, but i suppose it depends what you install.
 
ANOKNUSA said:
Yes, it won't hurt anything. Then just use the package manager to install your applications.

Two things to be aware of: first, pkg(8) is not installed by default, so the first time you run the command pkg will be downloaded and installed; and second, the default configuration in /etc/pkg/FreeBSD.conf uses the "quarterly," rather than the "latest" repository. The "quarterly" repository remains static for three months at a time, receiving only security and bug fix updates, while the "latest" repository is rolling-release.
Click to expand...

All is fine, I removed all ports, but now, I want to install opera with flash plugin support, and I need to make it from port.
How can I get (download) only the port I need, for this special operation ?
 
That has nothing to do with 10.2 in particular. All versions of FreeBSD use the same ports tree, i.e. have the same applications and versions. The reason it was removed was because it doesn't support the new package system.

ports-mgmt/porteasy
 
ok. som
SirDice said:
That has nothing to do with 10.2 in particular. All versions of FreeBSD use the same ports tree, i.e. have the same applications and versions. The reason it was removed was because it doesn't support the new package system.

ports-mgmt/porteasy
Click to expand...

So ports-mgmt/porteasy is not available in any version of FreeBSD, as I understand.
If I want to get a specific port (and its dependencies), since I have deleted all ports on my computer for hard drive space saving purpose, I have to do it manually using svn, and fetch all needed dependencies. Am I all right ?
 
Best thing to do is to fetch the whole ports tree, not just parts of it. The ports tree itself isn't that big, it's /usr/ports/distfiles and the work/ directories that can take up a lot of space.

Tip, set WRKDIRPREFIX to a place with lots of room. That will cause the work/ directories to be created there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top