From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 16 19:39:22 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C8431065670 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:39:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from corky1951@comcast.net) Received: from QMTA11.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta11.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.59.211]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E66A8FC08 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:39:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from omta07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.59]) by QMTA11.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id ijLF1d02L1GhbT85BjfNRv; Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:39:22 +0000 Received: from comcast.net ([98.203.142.76]) by omta07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id ijfL1d00S1f6R9u3TjfLyt; Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:39:22 +0000 Received: by comcast.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 16 Feb 2010 11:39:18 -0800 Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 11:39:18 -0800 From: Charlie Kester To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20100216193918.GE19201@comcast.net> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org References: <20100216153323.GA28829@A-Eskwadraat.nl> <4B7AE3AC.5040908@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4B7AE3AC.5040908@FreeBSD.org> X-Mailer: Mutt 1.5.20 X-Composer: VIM 7.2 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Subject: Re: Combining multiple programs in single port X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:39:22 -0000 On Tue 16 Feb 2010 at 10:27:56 PST Doug Barton wrote: >On 2/16/2010 7:33 AM, Jeroen Schot wrote: >> Hello all, >> >> I want to provide a port for a set of small utilities[1], all in the same >> scope and from the same upstream, to FreeBSD. Since all are very small >> (around 100 line of C), making seven separate ports seems a bit >> overkill. > >Given that these are distinctly different tools, and seem to have their >own individual sources, different ports would be the way to go. In most cases where a port provides a suite of tools (e.g., my own sysutils/moreutils), you'll find that the upstream author has already bundled them together into a single distfile. Doing that on the port side seems like more trouble than it's worth.