When is a FreeBSD port not a port?
Frank Leonhardt (m)
frank2 at fjl.co.uk
Mon Oct 30 14:12:37 UTC 2017
On 29 October 2017 07:17:31 GMT+00:00, Mel Pilgrim <list_freebsd at bluerosetech.com> wrote:
>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
>>>> in various places, but it might make sense to put them in
>>>> ports/sysutils. However, they were written on BSD and are therefore
>>>> 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
>>>> them? I don't use GitHub or SourceForge (too old to change my ways,
>>>> 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
>>> There's precedent -- various ports for periodic jobs or other
>>> FreeBSD-ish things. We aren't hung up on the precise meaning of
>>> -- it's really a collection of software handily prepared to compile
>>> easily and (increasingly so over time) be made available as
>>> binary packages.
>> The ports and packages system installs and manages software that is
>> provided by the base system. It is really about simplifying the
>> of downloading, building and installing available software.
>> The name may have originated based on the idea of "porting" software
>> run on freebsd but it has grown to be more than that now. You may
>> that a lot of software in the ports tree does not need patches to run
>> freebsd, so many ports are not "ported" to freebsd, just installed.
Thanks all. I'll get packaging.
They are often small programs to make writing shell scrips easier, such as the human readable number formatter I linked to, or things to read some system status. Five minutes to write, one hour to package and one day to write the man page ;-)
Sent from my Cray X/MP with small fiddling keyboard.
More information about the freebsd-questions