From owner-freebsd-questions Tue Apr 10 8:23:51 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from guru.mired.org (okc-65-26-235-186.mmcable.com [65.26.235.186]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3119437B422 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 08:23:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mwm@mired.org) Received: (qmail 34701 invoked by uid 100); 10 Apr 2001 15:23:39 -0000 From: Mike Meyer MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15059.9595.671394.582659@guru.mired.org> Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:23:39 -0500 To: Fernan Aguero Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports vs standard sources In-Reply-To: <121811006@toto.iv> X-Mailer: VM 6.90 under 21.1 (patch 14) "Cuyahoga Valley" XEmacs Lucid X-face: "5Mnwy%?j>IIV\)A=):rjWL~NB2aH[}Yq8Z=u~vJ`"(,&SiLvbbz2W`;h9L,Yg`+vb1>RG% *h+%X^n0EZd>TM8_IB;a8F?(Fb"lw'IgCoyM.[Lg#r\ Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Fernan Aguero types: > Hi all! > > I am new to FreeBSD and just starting to get the grasp of the 'ports' > concept. I have already installed a few and found that is really a great > thing to have. However I also noticed that many of them are outdated and > also read a few posts suggesting to grab standard sources and compile > without using the ports. From my limited knowledge - and reading the > Handbook did not help me clarify this - this is how i see things. > > i) first of all I thought that ports were necessary because things would > not compile straight otherwise. Not always true. Some things simply build out of the box; others require a non-trivial amount of work to make build on FreeBSD. > ii) however several mentions to compile things without using ports have > made me think that this is not true in all cases. I'd only recommend that if you absolutely have to have the latest version, or need a configuration that can't be built from ports. If you want the version and configuration in the ports tree and it doesn't work, then report the fact to the maintainer so they can fix it. > Then my question is: how do autoconf based compilation work in FreeBSD? - > I mean sources that use GNU autoconf to generate a configure script (that > in turn generates a Makefile)? Applications that use GNU autoconf will just use GNU autoconf. That's part of the ports infrastructure. > If autoconf-configure work OK, then the idea of ports is just to help > download-patch-compile in an automated way? Saying that is sort of like saying "rpms are just to help ftp and extract tar files." At heart, it's true. But there's a lot more going on than that. For instance, ports also provide a consistent interface for installing, deinstalling, and some of the configuration of ports. > Another question: I noticed that some ports did run a configure script > before compiling, however, I could not pass any custom option to > configure, since it was all part of the port 'make' procedure. How can I > manually add options before compiling? > (Example: suppose I want to compile php as an apache module. I would run > configure on php sources like this: ./configure > --with-apache=../apache_1.3.x). How would you this with ports? By installing the mod_php3 or mod_php4 ports. Control of the configuration at build time is not a part of the standardized system for the port. Some provide it with dialog(1) or environment variables, some use "port families" where you basically install a different port, some don't provide it at all. That's one of the reasons for building from sources instead of a port - you want a configuration that just can't be done with ports. http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message