Prev: lang/cmucl broken on amd64?
Next: portmaster: problem with --packages-build?
From: Jesse Smith on 11 Jun 2010 09:58
I'm trying to teach myself how to build a FreeBSD port and, with a lot
of help from the manual, it's going well. I have a question though
concerning policy/style.

I'm trying to port a program which is distributed in two separate
packages from the upstream project. One package contains the executable
program and the other contains data files. The Data package rarely
changes. The idea being packaging them together would use up a lot of
extra bandwidth.

Which brings me to the question: Since the executable relies on the data
files being in place before it's run, how should I handle that in the
port? Should I just get the executable to install and let the user
manually get the data files? Should I create a second port for the data
package? Or should I find some way of making the executable's makefile
download and unpack the data package?

My instinct is to create a separate port for the Data package and list
it as a dependency for the Executable port. I'd appreciate some
guidance.

Thanks.



_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports(a)freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe(a)freebsd.org"

From: Greg Larkin on 11 Jun 2010 10:17
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jesse Smith wrote:
> I'm trying to teach myself how to build a FreeBSD port and, with a lot
> of help from the manual, it's going well. I have a question though
> concerning policy/style.
>
> I'm trying to port a program which is distributed in two separate
> packages from the upstream project. One package contains the executable
> program and the other contains data files. The Data package rarely
> changes. The idea being packaging them together would use up a lot of
> extra bandwidth.
>
> Which brings me to the question: Since the executable relies on the data
> files being in place before it's run, how should I handle that in the
> port? Should I just get the executable to install and let the user
> manually get the data files? Should I create a second port for the data
> package? Or should I find some way of making the executable's makefile
> download and unpack the data package?
>
> My instinct is to create a separate port for the Data package and list
> it as a dependency for the Executable port. I'd appreciate some
> guidance.
>
> Thanks.

Hi Jesse,

Welcome to the fray, and I'm glad to hear that you're learning how to
develop FreeBSD ports!

To answer your question - your port Makefile can download multiple
distribution files from the upstream download site. For a couple of
examples, see these Makefiles:

#1 - www/zend-framework:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/www/zend-framework/Makefile?rev=1.48;content-type=text%2Fplain

Note the DISTFILES value and how it is affected by setting NOPORTDOCS.
You can show the different values like so:

cd /usr/ports/www/zend-framework
make -V DISTFILES
make NOPORTDOCS=yes -V DISTFILES

The ZF port is a little different than yours because the distribution
files do change at each release, but the idea is the same.

#2 - lang/gcc45:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/lang/gcc45/Makefile?rev=1.444;content-type=text%2Fplain

This example is somewhat more complicated. I recently worked with
gerald@ to include support for the GNU Java Compiler (gcj) in the gcc45
port.

Search for "WITHOUT_JAVA" in the file, and you can see some use of
additional distribution files, including the use of tagging
(http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/porters-handbook/makefile-distfiles.html#PORTING-MASTER-SITES-N)
and preventing some distribution files from being automatically extracted.

If you have any further questions about your new port or the examples
above, please post back to the list.

Hope that helps,
Greg
- --
Greg Larkin

http://www.FreeBSD.org/ - The Power To Serve
http://www.sourcehosting.net/ - Ready. Set. Code.
http://twitter.com/sourcehosting/ - Follow me, follow you
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iD8DBQFMEkWK0sRouByUApARAi2RAJ9BsjY6G/uCNpjo5Hb3hMr0my+18gCgzO/N
1zbqQjs5FbBshIvSnYboHn0=
=RUVI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports(a)freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe(a)freebsd.org"

From: RW on 11 Jun 2010 10:57
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 10:58:50 -0300
Jesse Smith <jessefrgsmith(a)yahoo.ca> wrote:

> I'm trying to port a program which is distributed in two separate
> packages from the upstream project. One package contains the
> executable program and the other contains data files. The Data
> package rarely changes. The idea being packaging them together would
> use up a lot of extra bandwidth.

> Which brings me to the question: Since the executable relies on the
> data files being in place before it's run, how should I handle that
> in the port? Should I just get the executable to install and let the
> user manually get the data files? Should I create a second port for
> the data package? Or should I find some way of making the
> executable's makefile download and unpack the data package?


I think it depends on how the data is versioned. If it has a version
number in the filename that's the same as the executable, then a single
port is best. If they have separate version numbers, then go with two
ports.


If the data is not versioned at all, it might be best to create a
data port that uses a snapshot that you host separately.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports(a)freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe(a)freebsd.org"

From: Peter Pentchev on 11 Jun 2010 10:41
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 10:17:46AM -0400, Greg Larkin wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Jesse Smith wrote:
> > I'm trying to teach myself how to build a FreeBSD port and, with a lot
> > of help from the manual, it's going well. I have a question though
> > concerning policy/style.
> >
> > I'm trying to port a program which is distributed in two separate
> > packages from the upstream project. One package contains the executable
> > program and the other contains data files. The Data package rarely
> > changes. The idea being packaging them together would use up a lot of
> > extra bandwidth.
> >
> > Which brings me to the question: Since the executable relies on the data
> > files being in place before it's run, how should I handle that in the
> > port? Should I just get the executable to install and let the user
> > manually get the data files? Should I create a second port for the data
> > package? Or should I find some way of making the executable's makefile
> > download and unpack the data package?
> >
> > My instinct is to create a separate port for the Data package and list
> > it as a dependency for the Executable port. I'd appreciate some
> > guidance.
> >
> > Thanks.
>
> Hi Jesse,
>
> Welcome to the fray, and I'm glad to hear that you're learning how to
> develop FreeBSD ports!
>
> To answer your question - your port Makefile can download multiple
> distribution files from the upstream download site. For a couple of
> examples, see these Makefiles:
[snip]

All good points, and good examples. However... :)

Well, I do believe that if "the Data package rarely changes", then it
would be unnecessary not only to distribute it each time as a port's
source distfile, but also to include it (unchanged) in different
releases of the *packages* that the port builds. Thus, IMHO it would
be best to make a separate port for the data file and have the main
program (port) depend on it. This would make sure that not only people
who build the port "by hand" do not download the data file more often
than necessary, but also the people who use packages do not download
needlessly big packages for each program update with no data change.

Hope that came out clear enough; I know I'm not thinking straight today.

G'luck,
Peter

--
Peter Pentchev roam(a)ringlet.net roam(a)space.bg roam(a)FreeBSD.org
PGP key: http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roam/roam.key.asc
Key fingerprint FDBA FD79 C26F 3C51 C95E DF9E ED18 B68D 1619 4553
From: Paul Schmehl on 11 Jun 2010 10:40
--On Friday, June 11, 2010 10:58:50 -0300 Jesse Smith <jessefrgsmith(a)yahoo.ca>
wrote:

> I'm trying to teach myself how to build a FreeBSD port and, with a lot
> of help from the manual, it's going well. I have a question though
> concerning policy/style.
>
> I'm trying to port a program which is distributed in two separate
> packages from the upstream project. One package contains the executable
> program and the other contains data files. The Data package rarely
> changes. The idea being packaging them together would use up a lot of
> extra bandwidth.
>
> Which brings me to the question: Since the executable relies on the data
> files being in place before it's run, how should I handle that in the
> port? Should I just get the executable to install and let the user
> manually get the data files? Should I create a second port for the data
> package? Or should I find some way of making the executable's makefile
> download and unpack the data package?
>
> My instinct is to create a separate port for the Data package and list
> it as a dependency for the Executable port. I'd appreciate some
> guidance.
>

I think your instinct is correct.

You *could* put logic into the Makefile of a single port to verify that the
data files are the most recent ones, but having a second port makes a great
deal more sense to me, especially since the executables will be updating on a
more frequent basis than the data files. Just make the data file port a
RUN_DEPENDS of the executable port.

--
Paul Schmehl, Senior Infosec Analyst
As if it wasn't already obvious, my opinions
are my own and not those of my employer.
*******************************************
"It is as useless to argue with those who have
renounced the use of reason as to administer
medication to the dead." Thomas Jefferson

_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports(a)freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe(a)freebsd.org"

 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: lang/cmucl broken on amd64?
Next: portmaster: problem with --packages-build?