How to check out ports

Michael Gmelin freebsd at
Wed Oct 3 17:53:07 UTC 2012

On 3 Oct 2012, at 19:40, Paul Schmehl <pschmehl_lists at> wrote:

> --On October 3, 2012 1:21:47 PM +0200 Michael Gmelin <freebsd at> wrote:
>> The file name is the result of the command "git describe" and is
>> therefore stable. It consists of three parts:
>> tag - number of commits - commit hash
>> This project uses tags for versioning (which makes sense), so this file
>> name tells you that you're dealing with version v2-1.10, there have
>> been no commits to the tree since this version (it's unaltered) and the
>> commit id is g2f5d496 (which is a short but unique version of the
>> original sha1). You can use this commit id to get exactly this version
>> from a git repository (git clone ...; git checkout g2f5d496). If
>> somebody commited to the repository, the number in the middle would
>> increase and the hash change - but this will not happen in this
>> scenario, since github creates the tarball by checking out the tag (git
>> clone ...; git checkout v2-1.10), so as long as the project owner
>> doesn't change the meaning of the tag (which he usually won't since he
>> would redefine what vesion v2-1.10 means) this file name is stable.
>> That said, when you're fetching using the fetch command (this is
>> what ports uses) things look different anyway. Let's assume you're
>> fetching a tag (= a version) and not master (which is not a version, but
>> basically the current stable environment) and you're using the fetch
>> program to get it, then the resulting file name is NOT
>> firnsy-barnyard2-v2-1.10-0-g2f5d496.tar.gz but "v2-1.10".
>> [dev at bsd64 /tmp]$ fetch
>> v2-1.10                                       100% of  409 kB  414 kBps
>> ...
>> Like Eitan pointed out, fortunately there are github supporting options
>> in So if you use the following settings you should be fine
>> (just tested this here and ended up creating an almost complete port
>> skeleton - I turned v2-1.10 into 2.1.10 in the process, since v2-1.10
>> would not be supported by the ports system - so this installs as
>> barnyard2-2.1.10, which should be ok for future updates).
>> Makefile:
>> # Whom:        pschmehl_lists at
>> # $FreeBSD:$
>> #
>> PORTNAME=    barnyard2
>> PORTVERSION=    2.1.10
>> CATEGORIES=    security
>> GH_ACCOUNT=    firnsy
>> GH_PROJECT=    barnyard2
>> GH_TAGNAME=    v2-1.10
>> GH_COMMIT=    2f5d496
>> GNU_CONFIGURE=    yes
>> MAINTAINER=    pschmehl_lists at
>> COMMENT=    Barnyard2 is a dedicated spooler\
>>        for Snorts unified2 binary output format.
>> pre-configure:
>>    cd ${WRKSRC}; ${SH}
>> .include <>
>> distinfo:
>> SHA256 (barnyard2-2.1.10.tar.gz) =
>> 31d4e3745606489658bd411f74ffeb8a27573fdc08d0b51a6a71e1bf4dece8a2 SIZE
>> (barnyard2-2.1.10.tar.gz) = 419781
>> pkg-descr:
>> Barnyard2 is a dedicated spooler for Snort's
>> unified2 binary output format.
>> pkg-plist:
>> bin/barnyard2
>> etc/barnyard2.conf
>> I attached the full port skeleton in a tarball, it might need some
>> checking, I just did the usual (make install, make reinstall,
>> pkg_create, pkg_delete).
>> Maybe somebody could use this information to create a page about using
>> github in the porter's handbook (it won't be me :D)?
> Thanks, Michael.  You've been a huge help.  I had earlier searched /usr/ports/Mk for any sign of github and found none.  Your email made me realize my ports were out of date, a problem I need to fix.
> With your help I now have a distinfo file and am working on figuring out why it won't make.
> -- 
> Paul Schmehl, Senior Infosec Analyst
> As if it wasn't already obvious, my opinions
> are my own and not those of my employer.
> *******************************************
> "It is as useless to argue with those who have
> renounced the use of reason as to administer
> medication to the dead." Thomas Jefferson
> "There are some ideas so wrong that only a very
> intelligent person could believe in them." George Orwell

Check the tarball I sent in my last mail (attachments get purged on the mailing list but I CCed you directly, should untar that in /usr/ports/security, it's safer than copy and paste). That one built and installed ok on 9.0 amd64. What I could imagine is that is calling some autoconf/automake/lib tool magic that's already installed on my system and that should be made a dependency of the port. Let me know if you can't figure it out, once I'm back tomorrow I can try building it in a clean jail on 8.2 to see what's up.

(Sorry or the messy formatting, traveling means using the phone)

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list