Porting babashka (graalvm, clojure dialect) or is it ok to create a port of software that depends on linux compat?

[mariachi]

I need babashka in my server. It works fine with linux compatibility turned on as per the authors own instructions and tests:

FreeBSD

Native, fast starting Clojure interpreter for scripting - babashka/babashka

github.com

Now my question is: would porting this and submitting it to the ports collection acceptable? I'm asking because it needs linux compat, which feels like a big requirement, but I'm new to FreeBSD so maybe this is not such a big deal?

 

[cracauer@]

There's plenty of ports that pull in a Linux base already. You are fine.

It might be good avoiding a requirement on linux64.ko during build time, though, otherwise the people running the package builders might be miffed.

 

[mariachi]

ah right, I forgot about the requirement to "build" from source. So my question is moot, because AFAIK it is not possible to build GraalVM in FreeBSD at the moment. I was thinking about getting the binary and calling it a day.

Still, thanks for the info, it's always important to learn these etiquette tips.

 

[SirDice]

I forgot about the requirement to "build" from source.

There are plenty of ports that download and install a pre-built execute, a "port" doesn't necessarily equate to building from source. It's certainly preferred (so you can build a FreeBSD 'native' application), but it's definitely not required.

 

[SirDice]

For example: biology/linux-foldingathome This is similar to what you can do for babashka.

This port downloads the Linux binary for Folding@Home and installs it. Repackaging (building a FreeBSD pkg(8) from it for distribution, i.e. the FreeBSD repositories) isn't allowed though, so you may need to watch out for things like that.