April 23rd, 2004, 22:51
Under Linux, we have RPM, among other things. We always have source, and sometimes I'll build something from source on my RPM-based distro of Linux. RPM won't know it's there, but if all the dependencies are satisfied, I just set a few config options, build and install. Most of the stuff I try that way works as advertised. For example, I built the latest release of AfterStep2 on SuSE 8.2.

Under FreeBSD, we have ports. Is it likely something like AfterStep2 can be compiled under FreeBSD in the same fashion? Secondly, are there compelling reasons I should not? I find a few items just aren't offered in the ports, or the version I want is too new.


April 23rd, 2004, 23:23
well, FreeBSD does do a good job at keeping ports current and up to date. If you're looking for a port that isn't in your ports tree or is an out of date version the first thing to do is to cvsup your ports tree or check freshports or the appropriate mailling lists.

Sure there are lots of reasons people could give you not to compile from source out of the ports. Most reasonable people though (myself included) will compile from source if there is no port available. This like lots of other questions all boils down to the same thing.

How comfortable are you with manual work? If you feel rather confident go on and give it a shot!

April 28th, 2004, 09:07
One further question. Most of the stuff I compile from source has the full configure script, and it's not too hard to understand the options for the config. For example, I like IceWM with anti-aliasing enabled and gui-event sounds, and I know how to enable those options. Other software, like the new Joe editor 3.0, really don't have any options that are meaningful to me.

Each of them, and most other packages, have no trouble deciding what to do to compile on my SUSE box. If I'm missing something it needs, I can usually discern what it is and get it. Will these same config scripts work that way in FreeBSD? Is it your experience that the folks writing these scripts have written in the proper checks to make it compile under FreeBSD, pretty much as it would under Linux?


April 28th, 2004, 09:56
Almost all OSS will compile under Freebie, with some exceptions. Those exceptions being software overly dependent on the Linux kernel, snes9express (http://www.linuxgames.com/snes9express/) for example.

I'd suggest building from ports, if at all possible, because it is easier to manage, and usually you get useful patches that you would not get otherwise.

April 28th, 2004, 12:14
Almost all OSS will compile under Freebie, with some exceptions. Those exceptions being software overly dependent on the Linux kernel, snes9express (http://www.linuxgames.com/snes9express/) for example.

Most annoying to me is when someone assumes /bin/sh == /bin/bash and writes a script depending on a specific bash feature not found in sh. Would it have been that much more dificult for them to use #!/bin/bash at the top in the first place?
I can't complain too loudly though, as i'm sometimes guilty of using ksh specific constructs in scripts i label #!/bin/sh.

Back to the orig poster, many src packages will detect libs and other dependencies correctly provided you have your environment set up correctly. On some OS's you may need to specify a CCFLAG or LD_LIBRARY_PATH or even just the PATH in order to get things detected correctly.

April 28th, 2004, 22:54
Socomm, I'm under the impression games are probably the one sort of thing most likely to be a problem between OSs, especially since they present problems between distros within Linux.

Thanks, Frisco. That's something I'll have to look out for. I'm not all that adventurous, and even have root setup to run bash by default on my FreeBSD installations.