How should we name node-js ports ?

Matthew Seaman matthew at
Sat May 20 07:39:50 UTC 2017

On 20/05/2017 07:56, Julian Elischer wrote:
> this brings up the whole question of whether we should package these
> things ourselves anyhow.
> python and perl  have their own schemes (pip et al.)  and with npm (and
> others) node is no exception.
> it seems that to chase these packages down manually is a never ending task.
> maybe the way we should handle it is to have a generic  "handover to
> external package manager" feature,
> so that we somehow let npm (or whatever) do it ting but then take the
> output result an put it into our database.
> At $JOB we have the issue of many many node modules for our new gen UI
> and it causes us a great headache.

Certainly with perl, python, ruby, php and the like there is the problem
of when the perl or whatever module depends on some external library.
The native package managers for those languages really don't handle
those sort of dependencies at all, other than documenting that library
'foo' should be installed.  Not sure if node or go or whatever have the
same sort of out-of-context requirements.

Currently the only way to handle the dependencies on external libraries
is to create a port.  We'd have to do something along those lines in any
case as the upstream are unlikely to include FreeBSD specific dependency
information in their software.

I also like the idea of having the package database record all of the
files installed by any package manager -- that requires a FreeBSD
specific patch for each of the various languages, which is a lot of work
but must be cheaper overall than attempting to create a port for every
possible perl module or ruby gem and so forth.



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 931 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <>

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list