On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 15:12:34 -0700, "Steve Franks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That's alot of good info. It should go in the porter's handbook, > maybe...
Hi Steve, Probably not. What I wrote is specific to the GNU build system. We have many ports that use configure scripts and makefiles generated from various versions of the GNU build tools, but ports are ``different''. We are not the _maintainers_ of the main source code of all the ported applications. We just have to make sure they build on FreeBSD, and that's pretty much all of it. For example, if the source tree of a port includes a `configure.in' that is broken on FreeBSD and Cygwin, we don't really have to ``fix'' both of these. If it builds correctly on FreeBSD, we are done. This may not be enough for Cygwin users, but we are not out to fix everyone's code to build on everybody else's system. That would be an insane amount of work for a very doubtful amount of gain :) > So, if I'm looking to make a port, which one of those people should I > be acting as? Maintainer? That's FreeBSD-port-terminology you are > using, correct? FreeBSD Porters are a separate category. They usually fall in the category of `builder' I mentioned in the original post, but they have to provide the tools for `packagers' too, in the form of Makefiles, scripts and packaging lists that allow others to configure, build and package the ``vendor'' code for some FreeBSD version. When I mentioned `maintainer', `builder' and `packager' roles in the original post I didn't mean *FreeBSD-maintainer* but the actual person or team that maintains the upstream source of a program. HTH, Giorgos _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
