Having trouble with my first port...

This is what I have as my working makefile: paste.linux.chat/?be2d606a8059e474#…mtULyAuZbak3WnFTqMNkEBNvNJKsuXCq7gy

I am expecting it to download the code from github, the tag is specified, then run the MAKE_CMD command, which is ./build

Instead, it seems to give me the output as listed.

It correctly downloads the code (great), but doesn't run the `build` script.

farhan: it's probably trying to pass -f to your MAKE_CMD, you may need to set MAKEFILE and/or _MAKE_JOBS like boost-jam does

I don't see a -f flag here? github.com/freebsd/freebsd-ports/blob/main/devel/boost-jam/Makefile

-f is the flag to tell make what makefile to use, by setting MAKEFILE to an empty value, it prevents that flag from being passed (i assume)

I do not see that in the Makefile I pasted.

Am I missing something?

this is from ports itself, it's running ${MAKE_CMD} -f ${MAKEFILE} -j ${_MAKE_JOBS}

but your build script doesn't understand -f, which is what causes the error

so, run `make -f`?

I'm not following you.

Where is the `-f` you are referencing?

in the output you pasted: [error] invalid option: -f

this is because ports is running "${MAKE_CMD} -f ${MAKEFILE}", to make it not do that, you need to set MAKEFILE to an empty value, which is what boost-jam's makefile does

ohhhh

The issue seems to remain, did I do this right? paste.linux.chat/?aa288a03343395b0#…ZzRiTRaBkTQrbtW9VGN9hFgdUM1LBuqxW6s

hmm, try setting MAKE_FLAGS as well, an empty value should be fine

if that doesn't work you may need to dig into ports/Mk/ to see how ${MAKE_CMD} is actually invoked

I tried both blank and -I/usr/local/include. It fails saying unexpected flag I

so yes, I will have to dig into this...

the empty value returned the error...[error] unexpected positional argument

I"ll dig into it

there's a make flag (-d something) that will show the actual command it's running, which might also help

(put that on your make command line, not in the makefile)

hm...what is the path of ports/Mk?

oh, I was searching in /usr/src :/

Mk/ is in the top-level ports directory

I think I have to call it for the evening...

I know the basics of gmake, but not bsdmake. Maybe I can just write a bsdmake Makefile, might be easier...

farhan: you should write a do-build target instead of misusing MAKE_CMD for that

(and it is really nice that the ports framework ignores the rule about being verbose while building, so that you can debug what went wrong)

print/hyperlatex seems to be a better example port, just forget what devel/boost-jam does

Hello! I recently installed freebsd and using synth for my ports. I got a minisforum v3 and i cannot seem to get the touchpad to work. Touchscreen and keyboard works, though. Any place i can be guided to?

I come from linux, so please be patient with me

Tikosh: A good place for X questions is the #freebsd-xorg channel on EFnet. A lot of folks who work on the stuff are there. There's also the freebsd-x11 mailing list: lists.freebsd.org/subscription/freebsd-x11

Even for if im using wayland?

Even if im using wayland?

Thank you

mason: thank you

Tikosh: Sure! Hope it helps.

Tikosh: Ah, I know nothing about Wayland. I don't see Wayland-specific lists or channels but I bet the X folks are still the best resource.

I thought wayland wasnt a thing yet on freebsd?

seti_ : i saw the handbook talking about wayland

Yea. I come from gentoo linux. So im a linux soyguy lol

Jk

Freebsd is cool. Its similar to linux but different

Does anybody have experience using synth for building ports?

Im accustomed to gentoo. And i see a bit of similarity to portage and synth a bit. Is there another port mgr that similar to portage?

Ah, he left before I got a chance to recommend Poudriere.

Hi. According to forums.freebsd.org/threads/ipfw-or-pf.46706 ipfw seems to better supported (?) than pf. But the Handbook lists pf first (which I interpret as a recommendation). Which one to pick?

I chose pf because I found it easier to find resources for. But that could have been dumb luck. At least a couple knowledgeable people here use ipfw

dacav: I use ipfw, but probably more people really like pf. Really up to you. Look at the syntax of each and see what you prefer.

mason: I'm currently only using it for fail2ban

I managed btw to have it triggered, and `ipfw list` shows me the rule I wanted to see

65100 unreach port tcp from 192.168.122.1 to 127.0.0.1 80,443

I think I'm missing something though, because the rule is not effective

perhaps firewall_type="open" is too liberal, I've got to RT.M

;-)

Anyway, I understand that pf and ipfw are equally powerful, in the end?

dacav: Hm, might be worth looking at tables too, rather than raw rules for things.

Tables are a fantastic tool.

I don't know yet what they are

I'm currently just a first day user! :D

(first hour, actually)

Ah, nice! They seem to be very convenient

fail2ban seems to use rules, and grep for the correct rule before deleting it

I suppose I could do it removing the unbanned IP from the table instead

(probably after having it working with basic rules though... keeping it simple first ;-)

i have a mfi0 in raid mode but i think i should flash it to jbod mode (PERC H700 Integrated). what's the best way to go about doing that

dacav: Sorry, missed this. Tables are entities that contain a list of addresses or CIDR ranges, and you treat them with a single ipfw (or I guess pf) rule, rather than having a large number of separate rules.

They're particularly useful for both blocklists and allowlists.

hrm, i broke my vm-bhyve bridges

looks like net.link.bridge.member_ifaddrs >:|

ivy: who did this