sysinstall nigthmare - BSD

This is a discussion on sysinstall nigthmare - BSD ; Ok, a pretty newbie question. If I want to install the whole ports bundle (all 16k of them), how can I select all of then at once within sysinstall. Or how should i modify the Makefile in the downloaded bundle ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 29

Thread: sysinstall nigthmare

  1. sysinstall nigthmare

    Ok, a pretty newbie question. If I want to install the whole ports bundle
    (all 16k of them), how can I select all of then at once within sysinstall.
    Or how should i modify the Makefile in the downloaded bundle to be able to
    bypass the firewall? Or, what place should I modify so that pressing one key
    would both select the port and move down the list. Gosh, selecting even perl
    package with over 1.5k items is painful. Even more painful, when stupid
    sysinstall crushes because ftp server is misspelled.




  2. Re: sysinstall nigthmare

    Begin
    On 2006-12-09, Vladimir Moltchanov wrote:
    > Ok, a pretty newbie question. If I want to install the whole ports bundle
    > (all 16k of them), how can I select all of then at once within sysinstall.


    I'm not aware of a way to do that. I can't help but wonder why you'd
    want to. Especially since a lot of packages conflict with other packages
    (conflicting versions, other reasons). So even if you could ask it of
    sysinstall it'll break later on, so that won't do you much good.


    > Or how should i modify the Makefile in the downloaded bundle to be able to
    > bypass the firewall?


    How is this related to sysinstall? How do you suppose bypassing the
    firewall is relevant to a Makefile? I don't understand what it is you
    are trying to do, other than impressing us with your attempts to use
    jargon, and failing. Drop the jargon and explain what problem you're
    encountering that you are trying to overcome.


    > Or, what place should I modify so that pressing one key would both
    > select the port and move down the list. Gosh, selecting even perl
    > package with over 1.5k items is painful. Even more painful, when
    > stupid sysinstall crushes because ftp server is misspelled.


    Sysinstall is a tool for helping people getting started with a FreeBSD
    installation. It doesn't try to be the be-all end-all of configuration
    as that must surely fail. If you want to go ahead and do mass-installs,
    you're up for some scripting interfacing with the pkg_tools directly.

    So the way forward is to install a minimal system first. Once that boots
    reasonably well, figure out how to avoid conflicts while dumping massive
    amounts of packages on the system. Provided you really want that, which
    I doubt.


    --
    j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
    This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
    Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
    consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

  3. Re: sysinstall nigthmare



    "jpd" wrote in message
    news:<4tvriqF1675nhU1@mid.individual.net>...

    > Begin


    > On 2006-12-09, Vladimir Moltchanov wrote:


    > > Ok, a pretty newbie question. If I want to install the whole ports


    > > bundle (all 16k of them), how can I select all of then at once within
    > > sysinstall.


    >


    > I'm not aware of a way to do that. I can't help but wonder why you'd


    > want to. Especially since a lot of packages conflict with other


    > packages (conflicting versions, other reasons). So even if you could


    > ask it of sysinstall it'll break later on, so that won't do you much good.


    >


    Well, that's true, that some packages may conflict. But still, selecting
    each perl5 functionality support individually is a pain.

    >


    > > Or how should i modify the Makefile in the downloaded bundle to be


    > > able to bypass the firewall?


    >


    > How is this related to sysinstall? How do you suppose bypassing the


    > firewall is relevant to a Makefile? I don't understand what it is you


    > are trying to do, other than impressing us with your attempts to use


    > jargon, and failing. Drop the jargon and explain what problem you're


    > encountering that you are trying to overcome.


    >


    AFAIK there are 2 ways of getting the ports bundle. Sysinstall or manual.
    With manual install, you get a sort of build-tree, where running make should
    do essentially the same thing as sysinstall - getting the packages. However,
    it is preset to fetch the files directly from the distribution sites. I have
    to go through the firewall that uses a special syntax so fetching fails for
    me.

    >


    > > Or, what place should I modify so that pressing one key would both


    > > select the port and move down the list. Gosh, selecting even perl


    > > package with over 1.5k items is painful. Even more painful, when


    > > stupid sysinstall crushes because ftp server is misspelled.


    >


    > Sysinstall is a tool for helping people getting started with a FreeBSD


    > installation. It doesn't try to be the be-all end-all of configuration


    > as that must surely fail. If you want to go ahead and do


    > mass-installs, you're up for some scripting interfacing with the pkg_tools
    > directly.


    >


    Yes, that is one way to go. But mass install is supposed to be easy ,
    otherwise, there is no point.

    > So the way forward is to install a minimal system first. Once that


    > boots reasonably well, figure out how to avoid conflicts while dumping


    > massive amounts of packages on the system. Provided you really want


    > that, which I doubt.


    >


    Basic system does install and even boots. Basically, I was hoping to find a
    Redhat Linux type of installation, which would create a usable OS
    environment together with applications, which I could use. Apparently,
    freeBSD is not there yet.



    Thanks for reply.



  4. Re: sysinstall nigthmare

    Vladimir Moltchanov wrote:
    > Yes, that is one way to go. But mass install is supposed to be easy ,
    > otherwise, there is no point.

    ....
    > Basic system does install and even boots. Basically, I was hoping to find a
    > Redhat Linux type of installation, which would create a usable OS
    > environment together with applications, which I could use. Apparently,
    > freeBSD is not there yet.


    By the way, if you read "man sysintall" you will discover that
    sysinstall has the possibility of using a config script which does
    essentially the same thing as RedHat kickstart.

    RUNNING SCRIPTS
    The sysinstall utility may be either driven interactively through its
    various internal menus or run in batch mode, driven by an external
    script. Such a script may be loaded and executed in one of 3 ways:
    ....

    --

    Michel TALON


  5. Re: sysinstall nigthmare

    Begin
    On 2006-12-09, Vladimir Moltchanov wrote:
    > AFAIK there are 2 ways of getting the ports bundle. Sysinstall or manual.
    > With manual install, you get a sort of build-tree, where running make should
    > do essentially the same thing as sysinstall - getting the packages.


    Not quite correct. You can do source builds yourself using the ports
    tree, or you can install prebuilt packages. The packages are essentially
    tarballs with binaries and some meta info. The ports tree is what is
    used to build those packages. There's nothing sort-of about that.
    Sysinstall is a fancy interface to fetch and install prebuilt packages.
    It is not required.


    > However, it is preset to fetch the files directly from the
    > distribution sites. I have to go through the firewall that uses a
    > special syntax so fetching fails for me.


    In that case you'll have trouble with sysinstall fetching packages over
    the network as well. Again, doing it that way is not required. If you
    want to, you can fetch the required files by some other means. As long
    as it can find the files where you told it to get them it'll be happy.
    You have quite a few options to do that, too. This is equally true for
    the ports tree, for the pkg_* tools, and for sysinstall.


    > Yes, that is one way to go. But mass install is supposed to be easy ,
    > otherwise, there is no point.


    How many people are there that absolutely have to have every imaginable
    perl5 package in the ports tree on their first FreeBSD installation, do
    you think? I think you're the first, and probably misguided at that.


    > Basic system does install and even boots. Basically, I was hoping to find a
    > Redhat Linux type of installation, which would create a usable OS
    > environment together with applications, which I could use. Apparently,
    > freeBSD is not there yet.


    You're quite wrong. FreeBSD does not aim to be redhat, and for good reason.

    Sysinstall gives me a usable system to build on in about 15 minutes,
    including custom disk layout. It won't have anything else, mind, but
    that's fine; I can now concentrate on what I want the system to do
    instead of trying to instal packages and trying to get it to boot at the
    same time.

    If I have a build box and have created prefab packagesets, I can create
    a new install even faster, on the order of a minute or two. Meaning that
    the system scales up very well to larger environments. With redhat, it
    took me a lot more effort trying to set that up.

    If you want redhat, you know where to find it. If, on the other hand,
    you want a mature system that is very well adaptable and doesn't try
    to outguess you, FreeBSD may be for you.


    Oh, and please do something about those extra empty lines in your quotes.


    --
    j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
    This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
    Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
    consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

  6. Re: sysinstall nigthmare

    "Vladimir Moltchanov" writes:

    > Ok, a pretty newbie question. If I want to install the whole ports bundle
    > (all 16k of them), how can I select all of then at once within sysinstall.


    You can't, and you don't want to. ;-)

    man pkg_add # esp. pkg_add -r
    man ports

    Mit schönem Gruß
    - Thomas


    --
    Memories, my memories
    How long can you stay
    To haunt my days - Queen, All Dead, All Dead
    /* PGP key auf Wunsch per e-mail || PGP key sent on request */

  7. Re: sysinstall nigthmare

    Vladimir Moltchanov wrote:
    >
    > Basic system does install and even boots. Basically, I was hoping to find a
    > Redhat Linux type of installation, which would create a usable OS
    > environment together with applications, which I could use.


    PC-BSD is more like the "we know what you want" Linux distributions:

    http://www.pcbsd.org

    But if you want Red Hat, why not just use Fedora?

    > Apparently, freeBSD is not there yet.


    Yes, so far FreeBSD has managed to resist bloating.

    --
    Warren Block * Rapid City, South Dakota * USA

  8. Re: sysinstall nigthmare

    On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 16:55:32 +0100, Thomas Köllmann wrote:

    > "Vladimir Moltchanov" writes:
    >
    >> Ok, a pretty newbie question. If I want to install the whole ports bundle
    >> (all 16k of them), how can I select all of then at once within sysinstall.

    >
    > You can't, and you don't want to. ;-)


    I think it could be done outside sysinstall, by issuing "make install
    clean" at the top of the ports tree. But that would be absurd.
    >



    --
    Robert T. Kopp
    http://analytic.tripod.com/

  9. Re: sysinstall nigthmare


    "jpd" wrote in message
    news:4u016sF15uhhtU1@mid.individual.net...
    > Begin
    > On 2006-12-09, Vladimir Moltchanov wrote:
    > In that case you'll have trouble with sysinstall fetching packages over
    > the network as well. Again, doing it that way is not required. If you
    > want to, you can fetch the required files by some other means. As long
    > as it can find the files where you told it to get them it'll be happy.
    > You have quite a few options to do that, too. This is equally true for
    > the ports tree, for the pkg_* tools, and for sysinstall.
    >

    Well, sysinstall uses ftp to get the files. I can download the packages
    ofc. The trick is to ask them all to install without spending 2 hours for
    clicking or scripting.

    >
    >
    > How many people are there that absolutely have to have every imaginable
    > perl5 package in the ports tree on their first FreeBSD installation, do
    > you think? I think you're the first, and probably misguided at that.
    >


    IMHO, there are much more people, who dont want to care, that perl consists
    of 1.5k packages and not just one item - "perl".

    >
    > You're quite wrong. FreeBSD does not aim to be redhat, and for good
    > reason.
    >
    > Sysinstall gives me a usable system to build on in about 15 minutes,
    > including custom disk layout. It won't have anything else, mind, but
    > that's fine; I can now concentrate on what I want the system to do
    > instead of trying to instal packages and trying to get it to boot at the
    > same time.
    >
    > If I have a build box and have created prefab packagesets, I can create
    > a new install even faster, on the order of a minute or two. Meaning that
    > the system scales up very well to larger environments. With redhat, it
    > took me a lot more effort trying to set that up.
    >
    > If you want redhat, you know where to find it. If, on the other hand,
    > you want a mature system that is very well adaptable and doesn't try
    > to outguess you, FreeBSD may be for you.
    >


    Well, that is a very good reason, I agree. However, I would question
    maturity of any system, that puts usability to the last place.

    B.R.
    Vladimir.



  10. Re: sysinstall nigthmare


    "Warren Block" wrote in message
    news:slrnenogvm.olk.wblock@speedy.wonkity.com...
    > Vladimir Moltchanov wrote:
    >
    > PC-BSD is more like the "we know what you want" Linux distributions:
    >
    > http://www.pcbsd.org
    >


    Thanks, I'll try that.

    >
    > But if you want Red Hat, why not just use Fedora?
    >


    For couple of reasons I have to use FreeBSD at one machine.

    >
    > Yes, so far FreeBSD has managed to resist bloating.
    >


    Well, IMHO, bloating is a way of the future. FreeBSD and Linux are fighting
    for the same place under the sun. The winner will be the one, that will
    appeal to the non-experienced users. And the starting point is the ease of
    installation. But again, its my IMHO. Coming from Windows background, I am
    prepared to waste disk space and processor time vs. my own "clicking" time.


    B.R.
    Vladimir.



  11. Re: sysinstall nigthmare


    "Michel Talon" wrote in message
    news:elege4$meg$1@asmodee.lpthe.jussieu.fr...
    > Vladimir Moltchanov wrote:
    >
    > By the way, if you read "man sysintall" you will discover that
    > sysinstall has the possibility of using a config script which does
    > essentially the same thing as RedHat kickstart.
    >
    > RUNNING SCRIPTS
    > The sysinstall utility may be either driven interactively through its
    > various internal menus or run in batch mode, driven by an external
    > script. Such a script may be loaded and executed in one of 3 ways:
    > ...
    >
    > --
    >
    > Michel TALON
    >


    Yes, I've read the manual. As far as I was able to understand, setup command
    for every package has to be added to the script. So, unless such a script is
    already written somewhere, its not a solution atm.

    B.R.
    Vladimir.



  12. Re: sysinstall nigthmare

    Begin
    On 2006-12-11, Vladimir wrote:
    > Well, sysinstall uses ftp to get the files.


    Yes, it can do that. It can do more, and gives you enough opportunity
    to choose alternatives. It is up to you to use them.


    [snippety]
    > However, I would question maturity of any system, that puts usability
    > to the last place.


    Your definition of usability apparently matches redhat's better than
    FreeBSD's. The conclusion should be obvious and has already been
    mentioned. Instead you insist on making veiled insults. I'll be hard
    pressed to call that mature.


    --
    j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
    This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
    Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
    consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

  13. Re: sysinstall nigthmare

    Begin <2fefh.44604$_k2.819491@news2.nokia.com>
    On 2006-12-11, Vladimir wrote:
    > Well, IMHO, bloating is a way of the future.


    Only if you're looking for job security. It causes all sorts of nasty
    interference and security problems. The desktop environments like kde
    and especially gnome are known to be a pain to get to work. The ports
    collection takes care of that but each new version it breaks in some
    creative way requiring the maintainers to fix it again.


    > FreeBSD and Linux are fighting for the same place under the sun.


    No.


    > The winner will be the one, that will appeal to the non-experienced
    > users.


    In that market, perhaps. It isn't the only market. Otherwise unix
    in general would have ceased to exist, succumbing to our friends in
    redmond. But lo, it still exists. It still is widely used, and it still
    is economically viable to use. In fact, most of the servers on the
    internet still are largely run on unix machines.


    > And the starting point is the ease of installation.


    You're looking at it only from your apparently very limited viewpoint.

    Ease of installation means something quite different for the big farm
    admin who has to care for a thousand machines than for the home user who
    installs a new machine maybe a couple of times a year, probably less.
    redhat focuses on the pretty pictures. Good for them.

    FreeBSD can be very useful in either role but it doesn't have the
    resources to care and if it had still wouldn't care for the pretty
    pictures in the installation. What's important is what you look at every
    day. For the home user, that's a desktop, not an installer. The admin
    has better things to do than to click through menus and has prefab
    configs to roll out, automatically.


    > But again, its my IMHO. Coming from Windows background,


    Well, there you go.


    > I am prepared to waste disk space and processor time vs. my own
    > "clicking" time.


    I think clicking is a waste of my time. I'd much rather write a script
    once so I can have it work unattendedly the next time. But then, I don't
    need a graphical environment with a button for every possible action.


    --
    j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
    This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
    Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
    consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

  14. Re: sysinstall nigthmare

    Vladimir wrote:
    >
    > Yes, I've read the manual. As far as I was able to understand, setup command
    > for every package has to be added to the script. So, unless such a script is
    > already written somewhere, its not a solution atm.



    Where do you see that? When you run pkg_add -r bash, for example, this
    installs bash without asking any setup question. Why would it be
    different with syinstall? Anyways the interest of sysinstall scripting,
    or of RedHat kickstart, is not in installing a given set of packages -
    this you can do later on, with a simple script (such as giving a list of
    ports is a variable and running pkg_add -r in a for loop controlled by
    this variable) - it is to do basic things automatically such as formatting
    the disk and installing a base system (*) which allows, after boot, to run
    the previous script. This technique is particularly useful when
    installing machines from network, either with pxe if they have pxe
    enabled network cards, or with etherboot for old machines. This way you
    can mass install a large number of machines with minimal user
    interaction - limited to pressing the start button on pxe machines, and
    booting an etherboot floppy on old machines.

    (*) including giving root passwd, creating users, setting correct
    localization, etc. all of that driven by the script.

    --

    Michel TALON


  15. Re: sysinstall nigthmare

    Begin
    On 2006-12-11, Vladimir wrote:
    > Yes, I've read the manual. As far as I was able to understand, setup command
    > for every package has to be added to the script. So, unless such a script is
    > already written somewhere, its not a solution atm.


    $ ftp -a ftp.nl.freebsd.org
    [successful anon login elided]
    ftp> cd /pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-6.2-release/All
    250 Directory successfully changed.
    ftp> ls . porstlist
    output to local-file: portslist [anpqy?]? y
    229 Entering Extended Passive Mode (|||55764|)
    150 Here comes the directory listing.
    1152 KB 125.82 KB/s
    226 Directory send OK.
    ftp> quit
    221 Goodbye.
    $ cut -c 57- portslist | grep ^p5-[list of all p5- packages elided]
    $

    That took me about, oh, a minute or two minutes to work out, not the two
    hours you so dreaded. You now have enough information to fetch them all
    then feed them to pkg_add or, for another minute or so of work, figure
    out the right format to add them to the config list for sysinstall.

    You could have had such an answer ten postings back if you'd deigned
    yourself worthy of asking for help instead of lamenting that FreeBSD
    wasn't down to your standards. I'd like getting paid again but just
    maybe I'll not ask for a job like what nokia apparently pays you do to,
    as actually achieving something now and then does have its upsides.


    --
    j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
    This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
    Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
    consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

  16. Re: sysinstall nigthmare


    "jpd" wrote in message
    news:4u5gnsF1633eaU1@mid.individual.net...
    > Begin
    > On 2006-12-11, Vladimir wrote:
    >> Well, sysinstall uses ftp to get the files.

    >
    > Yes, it can do that. It can do more, and gives you enough opportunity
    > to choose alternatives. It is up to you to use them.
    >
    >
    > [snippety]
    >> However, I would question maturity of any system, that puts usability
    >> to the last place.

    >
    > Your definition of usability apparently matches redhat's better than
    > FreeBSD's. The conclusion should be obvious and has already been
    > mentioned. Instead you insist on making veiled insults. I'll be hard
    > pressed to call that mature.
    >


    I don't remember making personal remarks or insults.



  17. Re: sysinstall nigthmare

    "Vladimir" writes:

    > "Warren Block" wrote in message
    > news:slrnenogvm.olk.wblock@speedy.wonkity.com...
    > > Vladimir Moltchanov wrote:
    > >
    > > PC-BSD is more like the "we know what you want" Linux distributions:
    > >
    > > http://www.pcbsd.org
    > >

    >
    > Thanks, I'll try that.
    >
    > >
    > > But if you want Red Hat, why not just use Fedora?
    > >

    >
    > For couple of reasons I have to use FreeBSD at one machine.
    >
    > >
    > > Yes, so far FreeBSD has managed to resist bloating.
    > >

    >
    > Well, IMHO, bloating is a way of the future. FreeBSD and Linux are fighting
    > for the same place under the sun. The winner will be the one, that will
    > appeal to the non-experienced users.


    Why do you assume there can be only one OS?

    -- Patrick

  18. Re: sysinstall nigthmare

    Vladimir wrote:
    >
    > Well, IMHO, bloating is a way of the future. FreeBSD and Linux are fighting
    > for the same place under the sun. The winner will be the one, that will
    > appeal to the non-experienced users. And the starting point is the ease of
    > installation. But again, its my IMHO. Coming from Windows background, I am
    > prepared to waste disk space and processor time vs. my own "clicking" time.
    >


    There's more than one niche to occupy in the ecology of operating
    systems. Yes, there are vast herds of portly hooved things that amble
    around, chewing slowly and being surprised a lot.

    There are also lithe, fast, nimble things, things that can adapt.

    The nimble things sometimes have to work harder, but they can also
    accomplish more.

    --
    Warren Block * Rapid City, South Dakota * USA

  19. Re: sysinstall nigthmare

    On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 14:32:57 +0000, Vladimir wrote:

    >
    > "jpd" wrote in message
    > news:4u016sF15uhhtU1@mid.individual.net...
    >> If you want redhat, you know where to find it. If, on the other hand,
    >> you want a mature system that is very well adaptable and doesn't try to
    >> outguess you, FreeBSD may be for you.
    >>
    >>

    > Well, that is a very good reason, I agree. However, I would question
    > maturity of any system, that puts usability to the last place.
    >


    Define usability? I find FreeBSD extremely useful as a server platform -
    no GUI to get in the way. It's debatable whether or not being able to
    click a mouse is in any way an improvement.

    FreeBSD makes no assumptions about what I want to do with it. The default
    install gives me a useful system to which I can add anything I want,
    usually by compiling from source. I end up with a system I understand, and
    know where to look if things don't work as expected. I'm not sure that
    FreeBSD (or any of the *BSDs) wants to be a Windows replacement. Or
    indeed, should be. Plenty of Linux distros have taken on that job already
    (and some do it quite well, if that's what you're looking for).

    As for mature, I've been using it since 3.x days, and still have a couple
    of 4.x machines chugging away, doing what FBSD does best (e.g. a 700MHz
    P3 system acting as email system for 5000 accounts). I also have a FBSD
    desktop system too - sometimes a GUI can be useful.

    -Adrian

  20. Re: sysinstall nigthmare

    On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 14:50:38 GMT
    "Vladimir" wrote:

    >
    > "Warren Block" wrote in message


    > > Yes, so far FreeBSD has managed to resist bloating.
    > >

    >
    > Well, IMHO, bloating is a way of the future. FreeBSD and Linux are
    > fighting for the same place under the sun. The winner will be the one,


    No they are not - FreeBSD survives perfectly well as long as it
    keeps it's developer base in good shape. The same applies for all the other
    BSDs and a number of other OSs. Nobody *needs* to take on Windows and MacOS
    to survive or even to grow. One thing that is clear from recent history is
    that in the mass market pre-installed and ready-to-run wins hands down over
    good and powerful - no matter how easy you make the install.

    > that will appeal to the non-experienced users. And the starting point is


    FreeBSD has never tried to appeal to the non-experienced user and
    has always been content to provide a useful environment to the experienced
    user.

    Personally I think it would be a very bad thing if any OS were to
    become the "one true OS" used by everyone for everything. No matter what
    that OS may be. I am a great fan of interoperability, diversity and horses
    for courses. As such I am happy to see that not everyone wants to go in the
    same direction in OS development.

    Long live the minority OSs, may there always be many of them.

    > the ease of installation. But again, its my IMHO. Coming from Windows
    > background, I am prepared to waste disk space and processor time vs. my
    > own "clicking" time.


    I for one don't want to waste bandwidth on downloading a pile of
    code I will never use. Coming from a long unix family background I
    appreciate clean and elegant

    --
    C:>WIN | Directable Mirror Arrays
    The computer obeys and wins. | A better way to focus the sun
    You lose and Bill collects. | licences available see
    | http://www.sohara.org/

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast