When is a FreeBSD port not a port?

Mel Pilgrim list_freebsd at bluerosetech.com
Sun Oct 29 07:17:37 UTC 2017

On 10/28/2017 21:16, Shane Ambler wrote:
> On 27/10/2017 22:46, Matthew Seaman wrote:
>> On 27/10/2017 12:13, Frank Leonhardt wrote:
>>> I've written a "few" utilities over the years that I've made available
>>> in various places, but it might make sense to put them in
>>> ports/sysutils. However, they were written on BSD and are therefore not
>>> ports.
>>> Should I submit them anyway (if I find time to clean them up, of
>>> course)? Or if not, any (polite) suggestions as to where I should put
>>> them? I don't use GitHub or SourceForge (too old to change my ways, and
>>> I normally work off-line anyway).
>>> e.g. http://www.fjl.co.uk/free-stuff
>> By all means, please do submit your FreeBSD specific code as a "port".
>> There's precedent -- various ports for periodic jobs or other
>> FreeBSD-ish things.  We aren't hung up on the precise meaning of "ports"
>> -- it's really a collection of software handily prepared to compile
>> easily and (increasingly so over time) be made available as pre-compiled
>> binary packages.
> The ports and packages system installs and manages software that is not
> provided by the base system. It is really about simplifying the process
> of downloading, building and installing available software.
> The name may have originated based on the idea of "porting" software to
> run on freebsd but it has grown to be more than that now. You may notice
> that a lot of software in the ports tree does not need patches to run on
> freebsd, so many ports are not "ported" to freebsd, just installed.

Alternately, if you feel this is a tool only you would use, but still 
want to use the Ports Tree, pkg, poudriere, etc. to manage or deploy the 
tool, you can locally extend the ports tree.

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list