pfsense-tools.git clang gcc
-
You're likely to find a whole bunch of stuff you would need to install to get development going with pfSense.
A simpler approach, and a safer one with regard to your pfSense installation, would be to install FreeBSD 14.1 in a VM and use that as your dev system.
-
@dennypage I found this also on netgate docs. I have the pfsense in a VM already so it is not a big deal if it crashes.
https://docs.netgate.com/pfsense/en/latest/recipes/freebsd-pkg-repo.html.
I just want to test my PR in a real system to see if it works... most likely it will fail but I want to see why it does so I can fix it
-
@JonathanLee said in pfsense-tools.git clang gcc:
I found this also on netgate docs.
... https://docs.netgate.com/pfsense/en/latest/recipes/freebsd-pkg-repo.html.That doc is for installing pre-built packages from upstream FreeBSD. Installing a complete development environment that allows building ports is a different matter. It's bigger than a bread box so to speak.
-
Yup trying to build in pfSense is likely to lead only to pain!
-
@stephenw10 There is so many OSVERSION errors with it.... good fun
-
I am gonna do the FreeBSD route thanks for the recommendations
-
portsnap takes FOREVER to extract wow
-
It works I had to adapt the make file again USES= tar:tgz for it to make install clean. I have to update the pr now
it comes with ROCK too!!!!
-
This post is deleted! -
If anyone wants to test this out
https://github.com/pfsense/FreeBSD-ports/pull/1420
I did get it to fully compile with the adapted Makefile they disable SMB_LM that has been removed
-
@JonathanLee said in pfsense-tools.git clang gcc:
https://github.com/pfsense/FreeBSD-ports/pull/1420
Hi,
Can you provide a step by step to have a builder that makes it possible to compile packages compatible with latest 2.8.0 pfsense ?
I tried on different FreeBSD 15 versions without success because of missing dependenciesThis put me on a stop to pushing any changes/fixes to packages as currently I'm limited to only modifying the php extras and cannot compile any package from source
Thank you
-
@phil80 FWIW, I'm still using FreeBSD 14.2-RELEASE, just updating to 14.3-RELEASE. I've had no issues running the resulting binaries on FreeBSD 15-CURRENT (pfSense).
The general steps are:
Install the OS, documentation here.
Install the ports collection with git, documentation here.
Start working on your port, documentation here. Note that you can spend days and days learning the ins/outs/shortcuts of the ports system.
-
@dennypage said in pfsense-tools.git clang gcc:
@phil80 FWIW, I'm still using FreeBSD 14.2-RELEASE, just updating to 14.3-RELEASE. I've had no issues running the resulting binaries on FreeBSD 15-CURRENT (pfSense).
The general steps are:
Install the OS, documentation here.
Install the ports collection with git, documentation here.
Start working on your port, documentation here. Note that you can spend days and days learning the ins/outs/shortcuts of the ports system.
Strange
I used Hyper-V to run https://download.freebsd.org/snapshots/amd64/amd64/ISO-IMAGES/15.0/FreeBSD-15.0-CURRENT-amd64-20250724-01c587521dd8-279004-disc1.isoI then tried both usual portsnap and cloning pfsense FreeBSD-ports. The resulting binaries (bind9-devel) are missing links when ran in pfsense
I also tried FreeBD 13 jails. I didn't try 14.2 as I didn't expect it to work !
Normally, binaries compiled on a different kernel/environement rarely work on a different BSD version
-
@phil80 said in pfsense-tools.git clang gcc:
I then tried both usual portsnap and cloning pfsense FreeBSD-ports.
portsnap? I think that's been dead for a few years now. You need to use git for the ports collection now. Also, note that the pfSense FreeBSD-ports is not quite identical to the FreeBSD ports repo.
I use the standard FreeBSD ports collection, and then create the specific subdirectory that I am working on inside of that. To submit something to FreeBSD, I use their published methodology via their bug reporting system. To submit something to pfSense, I copy the directory into a clone of the pfSense FreeBSD-ports repo and do a PR.
14.3 is the current release version of FreeBSD, and seems the best place to build for me.
-
@dennypage said in pfsense-tools.git clang gcc:
@phil80 said in pfsense-tools.git clang gcc:
I then tried both usual portsnap and cloning pfsense FreeBSD-ports.
portsnap? I think that's been dead for a few years now. You need to use git for the ports collection now. Also, note that the pfSense FreeBSD-ports is not quite identical to the FreeBSD ports repo.
I use the standard FreeBSD ports collection, and then create the specific subdirectory that I am working on inside of that. To submit something to FreeBSD, I use their published methodology via their bug reporting system. To submit something to pfSense, I copy the directory into a clone of the pfSense FreeBSD-ports repo and do a PR.
14.3 is the current release version of FreeBSD, and seems the best place to build for me.
I use git for pfsense.
portsnap fetchproperly fetches freebsd ports collection
I'll try 14.3 with bind9 and report back. I just cannot understand how it can work as most packages need breaking dependencies between OS versions -
@phil80 said in pfsense-tools.git clang gcc:
portsnap fetch properly fetches freebsd ports collection
FWIW, portsnap is very dead as far as the FreeBSD folk are concerned. All references to it were removed from the documentation 5 years ago, and its use is no longer supported.
The original announcement is here: [HEADS UP] Planned deprecation of portsnap.
-
@dennypage said in pfsense-tools.git clang gcc:
@phil80 said in pfsense-tools.git clang gcc:
portsnap fetch properly fetches freebsd ports collection
FWIW, portsnap is very dead as far as the FreeBSD folk are concerned. All references to it were removed from the documentation 5 years ago, and its use is no longer supported.
The original announcement is here: [HEADS UP] Planned deprecation of portsnap.
Thank you for the reminder. I usually only use Latest. I always use git for collaboration
In short life or one use jails, portsnap is way faster to fetch than git for one package compile
Based on your linked article, I'll favor git in the future
