From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Wed Feb 24 16:36:12 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E7D4AB38FB for ; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 16:36:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bsd-lists@bsdforge.com) Received: from udns.ultimatedns.net (static-24-113-41-81.wavecable.com [24.113.41.81]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 605D219F5 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 16:36:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bsd-lists@bsdforge.com) Received: from ultimatedns.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by udns.ultimatedns.net (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id u1OGbu3p096245 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 08:38:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bsd-lists@bsdforge.com) To: In-Reply-To: <20160224141348.GF26283@home.opsec.eu> References: <1456310441.2840611.530361410.300FD5FB@webmail.messagingengine.com> <5B6EA9F9-AD60-4D59-9DD1-FD1C833F429A@waschbuesch.de>, <20160224141348.GF26283@home.opsec.eu> From: "Chris H" Subject: Re: automation of perl port creation from cpan Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 08:38:03 -0800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=fixed MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-id: <6c65d383425d9720eae1dc5e3368a0bf@ultimatedns.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 16:36:12 -0000 On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 15:13:48 +0100 Kurt Jaeger wrote > Hi! > > > > I have a perl app that I'd like to move to FreeBSD. It currently has a > > > whole list of cpan dependencies. Is there any partial automation of > > > generating ports from CPAN directly? Something similar to py-pytoport > > > for example. > > > > You could have a look at App::Pm2Port > > (https://metacpan.org/pod/App::Pm2Port) > > Last change: January 2010, so it's probably not modern enough for the > newer infrastructure ? Good point. I wonder if a shell script might not be a better approach to accomplish the desired goal; it'd be easier to keep up to date with the evolving ports framework, and wouldn't require any additional [external] dependencies. Is there anything in under Mk/ that might be added to, or used as a starting point? Just a thought. --Chris