Question about ports builds

[Chuck Swiger]

Charlie Sorsby wrote:
>> Charlie Sorsby wrote:
>> [ ... ]
>>> PS It would be really helpful if each port/package at freebsd.org
>>> had an indication whether it requires the latest and greatest
>>> version of freeBSD.  Put another way, it would be nice to know the
>>> oldest version of freeBSD it will work with.  Perhaps that could be
>>> included in the "Requires" list on the page for the port/package.
>> The people maintaining the ports attempt to support them on all of the active 
>> versions of FreeBSD, which means 4.10 or 4.11, 5.3 and later, 6.0 and later, 
>> and -CURRENT (what will become 7.0).
> 
> I find it hard to believe that 4.10 and 4.11 are even considered
> "active versions"; I can't find anything about either at the web
> site.  Try putting 4.11 into the search box on the freebsd.org home
> page.

4.11 is a legacy version and will be supported through Jan 31, 2007:

http://www.freebsd.org/security/
http://www.freebsd.org/releng/index.html

4.x is no longer recommended for a new installation.

> Anyway, I'm afraid that I haven't had much luck with new versions
> of ports relative to those distributed on the 4.11 CDROM and, in
> fact, have had problems trying to install some of those.  When I
> installed 4.11, I did have sysinstall install /usr/ports.  Frequently
> trying even to install from that directory tree fails.

You need to update your ports tree.  Read the fine documentation:

http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/ports-using.html

> My experience has been that trying to install ports on 4.11
> frequently produces complaints that it can't find some *4.11*
> directory at freeBSD.org.

If your ports tree comes from the original CD, you're trying to fetch old 
versions of the packages which have been updated since.

>> Support for 4.x is going away soon, 
> 
> Are you sure it isn't already gone?

Yes.

>> however, and it will become more common for new ports to not
>> work on 4.x as  time passes.
> 
> With each successive (major) version of freeBSD, it becomes less
> and less like BSD and more and more "invented here."  I suggest
> that the "BSD" be dropped from the name of the operating system
> currently being produced.

You're welcome to your opinion, even if it smells like flamebait to me.

>> For those ports that do not work with an older version like 4.x because of 
>> features added to more recent versions of the operating system, ports usually 
>> will indicate this in the Makefile.
> 
> Are you saying that the only way to tell is to fetch the new
> version of the port, unpack it, and read the Makefile?

Nope.  There's cvsweb access and sites like freshports.org...

> I just looked in the Makefile for .../graphics/gphoto2 that I just
> fetched from freeBSD.org -- specifically from:
> 
> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/ports.cgi?query=gphoto2&stype=all)
> 
> I could find nothing about an OS version but it may just be that I
> don't know specifically what to look for.
> 
> In any event, build failed:
> 
> Thursday,  6 Jul, 2006 -- 10:56:22 MDT
> => gphoto2-2.2.0.tar.bz2 doesn't seem to exist in /usr/ports/distfiles/.
> => Attempting to fetch from http://heanet.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/gphoto/.
> gphoto2-2.2.0.tar.bz2                                  530 kB   25 kBps
> ===>  Extracting for gphoto2-2.2.0
> => Checksum OK for gphoto2-2.2.0.tar.bz2.
> ===>  Patching for gphoto2-2.2.0
> -e: not found
> *** Error code 127
> 
> Stop in /home/crs/Incoming/Ports/gphoto2.

Supporting sed -e/REINPLACE_CMD happened somewhere around 4.8 or 4.9, so your 
version of the port Makefiles apparently predate this.

Your ports infrastructure is rather non-standard and being so far out-of-date, 
isn't likely to work properly without being updated per the directions above, 
although you could always go your own way and compile the software for yourself...

[ ... ]
> Charlie
> 
> PS Having used "real" BSD (4.[123], SunOS 4.1, etc), I wouldn't even
> buy a PC until FreeBSD became available.  Now I find that each
> successive release of free"BSD" is less and less BSD and more and
> more something else.  That's why I'm still using 4.11 (and probably
> will continue to do).  I think the powers-that-be at freebsd.org
> should seriously consider dropping the "BSD" part of the name.

Yeah, you said that above, too.  Feel free to use another operating system if 
you find something that suits you better....

-- 
-Chuck