Ports and packages - PC-BSD Forums

birdman · #1 11-09-2008, 03:51 PM

I have installed xfce4 using pkg_add (what a great system

) but cannot find the new panel items (goodies or plugins) as packages, but there appear to be some available as ports. Is it OK to mix ports with packages in this way?

Alan

Ralph_Ellis · #2 11-09-2008, 04:50 PM

Typically yes. The ports are usually more up to date but there should be no conflict between the XFCE4 ports and the add ons. The best visual package manager is DesktopBSD Tools.

cd /usr/ports/sysutils/desktopbsd-tools
make install clean

DesktopBSD Tools needs to build major sections of KDE3 so be prepared to wait for a while.

BlackBox · #3 11-09-2008, 07:15 PM

Took me about 4 hours.

birdman · #4 11-09-2008, 09:47 PM

Are you saying DesktopBSD Tools are an alternative to the XFCE plugins or they ARE the plugins? I note that there is a package that I could install with pkg_add.

Ralph_Ellis · #5 11-10-2008, 02:39 AM

DesktopBSD Tools is not an alternatives to XFCE4 plugins. It is a graphical ports manager so you can see what is available and install the ports or packages through a menu system. It also allows you to update the ports tree.
It is the most complete ports manager that Ihave seen and is very easy to use.
With pkg_add you need to know ahead of time what you are looking for. DesktopBSD Tools allows you to search and select multiple ports.

birdman · #6 11-10-2008, 12:45 PM

Excellent. Thanks for that. I have now got to start to think of reasons not to move from Linux permanently :wink:

BlackBox · #7 11-10-2008, 09:21 PM

This is off topic, but since you asked...

I set up my Ubuntu box with full-disk encryption, I didn't see that option when I installed PC-BSD (it has swap-partition encryption though). Could be that I didn't look hard enough.
And PC-BSD is a bit moody for my taste - things that work one day won't work the next, but may again the following day (unimportant things like logging in to a particular DE/WM session, logging off/shutting down). I am currently also unable to install any of the system updates.
But I'm still learning. All in all, I like this system, although I'm not going to replace my Linux installation with it, at least not any time soon. Maybe I'll try a fresh install next, or possibly building a FreeBSD system from scratch. Or - oh horror

- I'll take a look at what the creators of this fine tool have to offer.

birdman · #8 11-10-2008, 10:19 PM

Useful comments Blackbox.

Interestingly, the reasons you give could have been me writing about why I don't use Ubuntu. The world is a strange place. I never did find a way of shutting down my box properly. I guess it is all down to hardware combinations and most of us never really get to the bottom of it either because we are not techie enough or simply can't be bothered. It is easier just to try another distro - or BSD

That is where I am at right now. I cannot find a perfect linux distro so let's give BSD a go. Before installing PC-BSD I had tried to install Fedora 9 and Open SUSE 11. I couldn't get either to boot

The only distros that I have success with are Slackware based (using Vector currently). I am having a few niggles with Vector and 6.0 is not ready for release yet (I see no point in reinstalling 5.9). Plain Slackware is fantastic but it is hard work adding and configuring all those extra bits that you need (Vector does that for you). Zenwalk looks like a fantastic distro but the package range is limited. PC-BSD has a huge range packages, legendary stability (at least FreeBSD does) and is sufficiently obscure so as not to attract attention. If there is good hardware compatibility it might just work for me. I have had to make a BIOS change and I do get a dmesg message suggesting I try a different kernel for better graphics compatibility.

It is early days for me. I will always be running several OSs. It is fun to try stuff out. The difference here is that I am serious about choosing my number one system. PC-BSD could be it - too early to say because I am still learning how it works.

Ralph_Ellis · #9 11-10-2008, 10:50 PM

Just as a general comment, the i386 versions of PC-BSD have better graphics support and are less fussy on minor annoying things than the amd64 version. The System Updater works very well in i386 but has a few quirks on amd64. The amd64 version does a better job of compiling software quickly if you have enough memory.
PC-BSD is an excellent full time system as long as you accept that there are some rare pieces of hardware that will not work with it. Learning the system takes time but it is well worth it.
I am also a big fan of Suse Linux which I have used periodically since version 10. It will work on almost any hardware no matter how obscure.

birdman · #10 11-13-2008, 11:54 AM

So far so good

I used the ports for the first time and it took about an hour to compile DesktopBSD Tools. I have only had a chance to have a quick look at the package manager and I am very impressed. It is quick and easy to use. It does raise a few questions however:

I note that DesktopBSD is a separate project to PC-BSD, but both are built on FreeBSD. It appears that using the DesktopBSD Tools rather than PBIs is more in the spirit of DesktopBSD than PC-BSD. I assume there is total compatibility here?

The notes in DesktopBSD Tools assume that you are using either DesktopBSD or FreeBSD, therefore there are suggested changes if you are using the latter. What if you are using PC-BSD, it doesn't mention that?

I am still trying to find my BSD feet at the moment and do not want too many distractions, but if DesktopBSD Tools is so good then would DesktopBSD be a better choice than PC-BSD?

Alan