From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jun 25 15:13:44 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25B5616A41C for ; Sat, 25 Jun 2005 15:13:44 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from boris@brooknet.com.au) Received: from bloodwood.hunterlink.net.au (smtp-local.hunterlink.net.au [203.12.144.17]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7DFE43D53 for ; Sat, 25 Jun 2005 15:13:42 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from boris@brooknet.com.au) Received: from ppp2CD3.dyn.pacific.net.au (ppp2CD3.dyn.pacific.net.au [61.8.44.211]) by bloodwood.hunterlink.net.au (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j5PFC0ot017923; Sun, 26 Jun 2005 01:12:01 +1000 From: Sam Lawrance To: meka In-Reply-To: <20050625171055.1505c9fa.meka@softhome.net> References: <20050625171055.1505c9fa.meka@softhome.net> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 01:12:57 +1000 Message-Id: <1119712377.716.29.camel@dirk.no.domain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.2 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: FreeBSD Subject: Re: New kind of ports 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: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 15:13:44 -0000 On Sat, 2005-06-25 at 17:10 +0200, meka wrote: > I've discovered existence of FreeBSD in 2000. That was the biggest > discovery in my life. Ports system was just great. Then, I had to > install linux and wipe out bsd. I've found gentoo the closest solution > to freebsd's ports system. Portage (equivalent to ports in bsd) has > some adventages (and disadventages, too, but purpose of this mail is > inprooving ports system), but I would like to point out to just few of > them. First is the download. If one does make fetch, interupts it, and > does make fetch again, nothing happens. In that case you want 'make checksum'. See the 'ports' manpage. > Second, why does make has such > a weird dependency? I mean, wouldn't it be more logical to behave like > make dependencies and then unpack it self? I'm not sure what you're after here, perhaps misc/porteasy or devel/portcheckout will do what you want. -Sam