NOTE replying with my FreeBSD.org address to make the reply reach the
mailing list, sorry my previous messages on this thread bounced.
On 14/11/21 19:37, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
Hi!
It is also not correct to "commandeer" a port to force users on design
choices in conflict with the upstream project.
Is there a section in the ports maintainers guide or somewhere
else that mandates this ?
Sorry, my fault I did not make me clear maybe, this is all my own opinion.
So is what follows.
Anyway I don't see it as a good beahviour to take a port of some upstream
software and move it in a contrasting direction than the upstream.
I agree. The problem is that this is very difficult to codify
into some policy.
Very difficult, and I'd really would like to avoid to make the FreeBSD
project documents some kind of legal codex.
[...]
The name "ports" implies it is not the place for original development. I
also agree we often have a disconnection on how things are named and what
they actually are or behave, so I would not have any strong reply if you
were to state the the name cannot be held as a reason for policy.
So some sort of rule might be: If the functionality varies from
the upstream-project in a major way, please use a derived or different
name for the port.
As I stated in another (provate message) I just realized that this is at
least partly covered by "POLA". IN fact I would very astonished if some
port (say firefox for example) started behaving very differently than it
does on other OSes for no good technical reason.
OTOH a valid technical reason could be dropping some functionality
depending on some API not available on FreeBSD, just to make an example
from the top of my head.
--
Guido Falsi <madpi...@freebsd.org>
