Need help with a port

Greg Larkin glarkin at
Fri Dec 18 23:10:55 UTC 2009

Hash: SHA1

Paul Schmehl wrote:
> --On Thursday, December 17, 2009 23:48:08 -0600 Nikola Lečić
> <nikola.lecic at> wrote:
>> Hash: RIPEMD160
>> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:58:21 -0600
>> Paul Schmehl <pschmehl_lists at> wrote:
>>> I'm the port maintainer for security/barnyard2.  I submitted a port
>>> upgrade a while ago, but the committer asked me to make a change
>>> before he would approve it.  I'm not sure what to do.
>>> The source code, when it's extracted, sets the perms on install-sh to
>>> r--r--r.  This causes an error during the build.  The way I tried to
>>> resolve the issue was by adding this to the Makefile:
>>> +pre-install:
>>> +        ${CHMOD} 744 ${WRKSRC}/install-sh
>>> +
>>> The committer said that was the wrong way to do it, that I should
>>> edit the configure file.  But the configure file doesn't do anything
>>> to the install-sh file at all.
>> I think this should actually be ${CHMOD} ${BINMODE}. I have a similar
>> thing in one of my ports: textproc/teckit. Besides install-sh, the
>> permissions of configure script itself had to be altered.
>> A simple grep for CHMOD and WRKSRC reveals a heap of ports doing such
>> things in ${WRKSRC}...
> I see that now:
> # grep -r install-sh * | grep "WRKSRC" | grep "CHMOD"
> grep: security/base/work/base-php4/signatures: No such file or directory
> archivers/par2cmdline-tbb/Makefile:     @${CHMOD} u+x ${WRKSRC}/install-sh
> audio/mhwaveedit/Makefile:      @${CHMOD} +x ${WRKSRC}/install-sh
> Two questions come to mind.  1) Is there any standardized way to do
> this? (It's obvious it's not being done in a standard way) 2) Is there
> anyone with the authority to tell me don't/do do it this way and not
> that way?
> It looks like ${CHMOD} ${BINMODE} ${WRKSRC}/install-sh is the "right"
> way to do it, but can someone confirm that?  And can I finally get my
> update committed?

Hi Paul,

"make -V BINMODE" returns "555", so as long as you're OK with those
permissions, I would say using the ${BINMODE} macro is preferable.
Otherwise, there's no issue with you using the correct permissions value
(755, +x, etc.) for your situation.

If you're having difficulty getting your port committed because you have
a construct that is used in many other ports, I think you can ask for
portmgr's opinion.  They will certainly resolve the issue for you.
IMHO, I don't see any problem with what you're doing.

If your committer has not responded to you in some number of weeks, you
can also ask portmgr to reassign the port back to the pool or to another
willing committer.

Hope that helps,
- --
Greg Larkin           - The Power To Serve     - Ready. Set. Code. - Follow me, follow you
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list