LAME Package Question

Brandon J. Wandersee brandon.wandersee at
Sat Oct 29 20:28:06 UTC 2016

Matthew Seaman writes:

> On 29/10/2016 04:30, Polytropon wrote:
>> As far as I remember, installing LAME from source is the only
>> "official" way to install it. Due to certain restrictions, this
>> port cannot be packaged (and therefore no official package is
>> available for use with the "pkg install" command).
>> As you can see from
>> the port has set the RESTRICTED option - it cannot be packaged.
> On a point of pedantry: the restriction is that this software cannot be
> distributed as a compiled package, but only as source code.  You can
> build packages of LAME for your own personal use no problem.
> 	Cheers,
> 	Matthew

To add a little to this: the reasons why a port might not be packaged
change on a port-by-port basis. Some software, as Matthew said, can
legally only be obtained straight from the original source. It cannot be
redistributed in a different format by third parties. net-p2p/btsync is
another example of this: there's an official pre-compiled FreeBSD build
for it, but it's not freely licensed and must be directly obtained from
the project's homepage. Still other software found in the ports tree
cannot be packaged because the user must explicitly accept the EULA
before downloading and installing it, and I would guess it's not worth
the bother to add support to pkg(8) for handling such corner cases.

And of course, there are ports that can't be packaged because they
conflict with system defaults that the port system can't gracefully
handle, like Python 3 packages. Grrr.

::  Brandon J. Wandersee
::  brandon.wandersee at
::  --------------------------------------------------
::  'The best design is as little design as possible.'
::  --- Dieter Rams ----------------------------------

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list