On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 2:43 AM, Baptiste Daroussin <b...@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 11:06:02AM -0700, Russell Haley wrote: >> Hello Ports Team, >> >> A couple of us on the freebsd-mono@ mailing list are having a >> discussion on how best to maintain the mono ports/.net ports. One of >> the things that has come up is maintaining the patches for "all this >> stuff". The current paradigm in FreeBSD as I understand it is to use >> the files directory and apply the patches to the port via svn/ports >> tree. However, with the ubiquity of GitHub in opensource, it now seems >> to be feesable to simply create a Github accound to maintain a bunch >> of forked repositories (which is essentially a patched git >> repository!). This makes it easier to create and apply patches and >> gives us the natural path to push things back upstream. In the end, we >> would just pull from the FreeBSD specific repository, which is no >> different than, say, pulling from the mono project directly. >> >> This email is a request for response from anyone on the ports team (or >> FreeBSD general) to give some input as to the acceptability of this >> solution, as well as any "gotchas" we haven't thought of yet. Thanks >> in advance! >> > There are absolutely nothing against this. Actually some ports were already > doing that before the github era :D > > The only difficulty the history told us is : when active people get less > active > for various reasons you need to make sure enough people continues to get > access > to the said repo. > > Tracking upstream updates because more complicated for people not in the team > (we already saw in the past ports stucked for more than 5/6 years actions > being > taken (maintainer of the forked becoming mostly MIA) > > It also depends how many patches you end up with, I haven't checked the > mono/.net ports but if that is just a bunch of small patches then the overhead > is not worth the pain, if there are lots of patches then sure maintaining your > repo is simpler. > > Depending on how active you (the team) are and how close to the upstream you > are > one can also see those repositories as "temporary" until all the amount of > patches are upstreamed and when done the ports can switch back to the official > distfiles (this is always a goal for ports upstreaming all our patches so we > can > remain as close as possible from the vanilla sources) > > That said I do applause the effort. As a conclusion do what ever you think is > the easiest mechanism for you as long as things like monodevelop and friends > can > be pushed in a working state again. > > Best regards, > Bapt
Thanks for the input everyone. I think the overhead of keeping volatile patches in a globally accessible area is worth while. One of the things I struggled with historically is how to share my local changes that I couldn't commit to the svn tree. I have created an open source organization called FreeBSD-DotNet in Github. I have differentiated from the Mono moniker because the merging of the frameworks is inevitable with the purchase of Xamarian. I went a little crazy and forked a whole bunch of stuff, which I now think is a bad idea. The only thing that currently requires customization would be the ports tree itself (MonoDevelop doesn't build yet, but I haven't needed to change any code). However, I think we can put a bunch of how-to and wiki stuff in there for the development efforts. SO, with that: Anyone wishing to join the FreeBSD-DotNet organization can go to https://github.com/FreeBSD-DotNet and send a request. I'll try to flesh out an outstanding items list that can be ratified sometime in the next couple of weeks. Thanks, Russ _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
