From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 18 11:18:18 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 202921065698 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 11:18:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ohartman@zedat.fu-berlin.de) Received: from outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de [130.133.4.66]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD3858FC1C for ; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 11:18:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de ([130.133.4.69]) by outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.69) with esmtp (envelope-from ) id <1PJ2VM-0003uU-Ky>; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 12:18:16 +0100 Received: from telesto.geoinf.fu-berlin.de ([130.133.86.198]) by inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.69) with esmtpsa (envelope-from ) id <1PJ2VM-0001Xf-Hf>; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 12:18:16 +0100 Message-ID: <4CE50B7B.2070800@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 12:18:19 +0100 From: "O. Hartmann" Organization: Freie =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Universit=E4t_Berlin?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101029 Thunderbird/3.1.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rob Farmer References: <4CE416D0.2020105@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <4CE47A1F.804@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: 130.133.86.198 Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: porting software to FreeBSD, what to do if Makefile lacks? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 11:18:18 -0000 On 11/18/10 03:12, Rob Farmer wrote: > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 16:58, O. Hartmann > wrote: >> Thanks. >> I got it. But it seems that my first porting task run into some difficulties >> for the advanced porters, since there is no autotool environment. >> >> By the way, the global environment variable ${CSH} seems to be noneexistent, >> instead ${SH} exists. > > Interesting - I assumed it would be listed in bsd.commands.mk, but it > seems to not be. Most of the base system tools are. In any case, glad > to hear you got it working. > Well, in this case, it would really be a 'nice to have', maybe this is worth a PR?