KDE4 Not Available in STABLE?

purgatori

purgatori

Code: 
freebsd-487# pkg_add -r kde4
Error: Unable to get [url]ftp://ftp.au.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-8-stable/Latest/kde4.tbz:[/url] File unavailable (e.g., file not found, no access)
pkg_add: unable to fetch 'ftp://ftp.au.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-8-stable/Latest/kde4.tbz' by URL

Running FreeBSD 8.1, if that's relevant.
 
Advise using portmaster for that, no distinfo in kde4 ;
Code: 
 make build-depends-list && make run-depends-list
Code: 
portmaster -i -PP x11/kde4
, 8-stable packages exist for most of what portmaster would install, though you may have to manually build a few, do configurations, etc. Best to first also put the packages-8-stable (complete line) in /usr/local/etc/.portmasterrc (search that file on this forum for more complete syntax and examples... ) I show EIGHT threads using that search term, lots to read.
 
SirDice said:
It's possible there were build errors. Have a look on http://pointyhat.freebsd.org
Click to expand...

Thanks :) I see that there was a build error in kdebase4-workspace, so that would explain why there's no kde4 meta-package, and why when I installed kdebase4, I didn't get a startkde4 executable. So, after the build problem is resolved, the packages will reappear on the FTP, though?


jb: I was a bit confused by your instructions, what would I be using portmaster for, exactly? :-/ I'm still a bit of a noob to FreeBSD, you see, and some of its ways still seem strange.
 
purgatori said:
So, after the build problem is resolved, the packages will reappear on the FTP, though?
Click to expand...
Yes, they should be. It gets regularly updated and rebuilt. So problems should disappear after a while.
 
purgatori said:
jb: I was a bit confused by your instructions, what would I be using portmaster for, exactly? :-/ I'm still a bit of a noob to FreeBSD, you see, and some of its ways still seem strange.
Click to expand...

Portmaster is a ports management tool. It handles installing ports and any dependencies, as well as upgrading ports (and any ports that depend on the ones being upgraded). There's also a feature where you can tell it to install packages if they exist (-P) and to compile any ports that are missing.

That last feature is what you need. :) Portmaster would install packages for all the KDE4 bits that have packages, and would install from the ports tree any KDE4 bits that don't have packages.
 
phoenix said:
Portmaster is a ports management tool. It handles installing ports and any dependencies, as well as upgrading ports (and any ports that depend on the ones being upgraded). There's also a feature where you can tell it to install packages if they exist (-P) and to compile any ports that are missing.

That last feature is what you need. :) Portmaster would install packages for all the KDE4 bits that have packages, and would install from the ports tree any KDE4 bits that don't have packages.
Click to expand...

Ohhh ok, now I follow; thankyou for the explanation :) Is it a good idea to mix ports and packages, though? I've seen some members of this forum advise against it (and even go as far as advocating that FreeBSD newbies abstain from using ports altogether). I used ports primarily up until the time I ran into a dependency-hell situation, whereupon I deleted all installed ports, and reinstalled everything using packages.
 
I am currently of the opinion that (subject to change year by year) that packages-using-portmaster are preferred given either of two conditions ( port is more than a few weeks due for an update) ( port has a huge source code to download and/or long compile times and/or overpopulates disk space during the build ); OTOH under some of those conditions one may want to skip the upgrade, noting it on paper. That leaves ports for most upgrades *if* one usually updates right away after changes to the port versions, but the longer compile times etc, need more experience and sometimes tweaks to as easily build as a package would install. Just an "overview opinion", lots of edge cases.
 
If you leave the OPTIONS set to the defaults (or enable BATCH="yes" in /etc/make.conf) then you can (mostly) safely mix ports and packages.

Where you run into problems with mixing ports and packages is when you start (un)setting all kinds of non-default OPTIONS in the ports, such that things the packages require/depend on no longer exist.

Binary packages are created from the ports tree using the default OPTIONS.
 
KDE4 is a collection of packages.

Code: 
tima# pwd
/root
tima# cd /usr/ports/x11/kde4
tima# make config
                                                                                
     ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐     
     │                      Options for kde4 4.6.5                        │     
     │ ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │     
     │ │[X] KDEACCESSIBILITY  Accessibility applications                │ │     
     │ │[X] KDEADMIN          KDE Administration applications           │ │     
     │ │[X] KDEARTWORK        Additional themes, sounds, etc            │ │     
     │ │[X] KDEGAMES          Games like kolf, patience, atlantik, etc  │ │     
     │ │[ ] KDEEDU            Educational applications                  │ │     
     │ │[X] KDEGRAPHICS       Graphics utilities like kview, kpaint, etc│ │     
     │ │[X] KDENETWORK        Network-related programs like kopete, etc │ │     
     │ │[X] KDEMULTIMEDIA     Multimedia utilities like noatun, etc     │ │     
     │ │[X] KDEPIM            Personal Information Management: mail, etc│ │     
     │ │[X] KDEPLASMA         Extra plasmoids for KDE                   │ │     
     │ │[ ] KDESDK            KDE software development kit              │ │     
     │ │[X] KDETOYS           Miscellaneous small applications          │ │     
     │ │[X] KDEUTILS          Utilities like kcalc, kcharselect, etc    │ │     
     │ │[X] KDEWEBDEV         Website development environment           │ │     
     │ │[X] KTTS              KDE text-to-speech subsystem              │ │     
     ├─└────v(+)────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘─┤     
     │                       [  OK  ]       Cancel                        │     
     └────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘


You need to pick which of these you want on your system and then install each separately.
 
phoenix said:
If you leave the OPTIONS set to the defaults (or enable BATCH="yes" in /etc/make.conf) then you can (mostly) safely mix ports and packages.

Where you run into problems with mixing ports and packages is when you start (un)setting all kinds of non-default OPTIONS in the ports, such that things the packages require/depend on no longer exist.

Binary packages are created from the ports tree using the default OPTIONS.
Click to expand...

I did that :p But where I really ran into trouble is that the stuff being installed from packages were different versions to the stuff I was installing from ports.
 
I'm a supporter of the ports system because you can customize the Makefile- if you know what you are doing- to your particular needs. If you have the resources, try one with packages and the other with ports.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top