From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 24 07:21:46 2009 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 4FF641065690 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 07:21:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kaduk@MIT.EDU) Received: from biscayne-one-station.mit.edu (BISCAYNE-ONE-STATION.MIT.EDU [18.7.7.80]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CEFB8FC1A for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 07:21:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kaduk@MIT.EDU) Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (OUTGOING-AUTH.MIT.EDU [18.7.22.103]) by biscayne-one-station.mit.edu (8.13.6/8.9.2) with ESMTP id n2O79nOr025080 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 03:09:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from multics.mit.edu (MULTICS.MIT.EDU [18.187.1.73]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.13.6/8.12.4) with ESMTP id n2O79lYs025472 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 03:09:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from kaduk@localhost) by multics.mit.edu (8.12.9.20060308) id n2O79lKL016630; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 03:09:47 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 03:09:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Benjamin Kaduk To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Message-ID: User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (GSO 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.42 X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.00 Subject: what to use as source for libss? 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, 24 Mar 2009 07:21:46 -0000 Hi all, I'm looking to make a port for libss, so that I can make another port (the zephyr IM library) that depends on it. FreeBSD used to have a libss, but kris removed it 7 years ago because it was not getting used. NetBSD still installs a libss, and they use the source from Heimdal (which is in lib/sl, interestingly enough). I asked around here at MIT, and people indicated that the most current version of a libss would be in the e2fsprogs package, and, in fact, that source package is used for the Debian libss package. It seems kind of sad to pull in another tarball when there is probably somethin good enough in the base system source, but my understanding is that we want to keep the ports system useable even when there is no source present for the base system. Could someone with more experience than me please confirm (or contradict) my reasoning that the e2fsprogs tarball is the right thing to use as a source package, here? Thanks, Ben Kaduk