From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 18 13:16:51 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 126C81065679 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 13:16:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ohartman@zedat.fu-berlin.de) Received: from outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de [130.133.4.66]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC3118FC18 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 13:16:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de ([130.133.4.69]) by outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.69) with esmtp (envelope-from ) id <1PJ4M5-0000Sz-QI>; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 14:16:49 +0100 Received: from telesto.geoinf.fu-berlin.de ([130.133.86.198]) by inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.69) with esmtpsa (envelope-from ) id <1PJ4M5-0001Et-J2>; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 14:16:49 +0100 Message-ID: <4CE52744.30901@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 14:16:52 +0100 From: "O. Hartmann" Organization: Freie =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Universit=E4t_Berlin?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101029 Thunderbird/3.1.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rob Farmer References: <4CE416D0.2020105@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <4CE47A1F.804@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de> <4CE50B7B.2070800@zedat.fu-berlin.de> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: 130.133.86.198 Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: porting software to FreeBSD, what to do if Makefile lacks? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 13:16:51 -0000 On 11/18/10 13:52, Rob Farmer wrote: > 2010/11/18 O. Hartmann: >> Well, >> in this case, it would really be a 'nice to have', maybe this is worth a PR? >> > > Try asking on the ports@ list. I'm not sure what the criteria is for > something being listed there - if something isn't going to be used by > very many ports, it may not be worth adding, from a bloat point of > view. I would say it is probably safe for your port to assume csh is > /bin/csh, though. I'll do, thanks ;-) Oliver