Re: [RFC] New ports category "fs"
Hi Robert, I have a few remarks/questions. The move implemented two different operations at once: 1. Grouping sysutils/fusefs-*, and removing the 'fusefs-' port prefix. 2. Grouping all filesystems-related ports. Old sysutils/fusefs-* ports now do not have the 'fusefs-' prefix, but the packages produced from them still have. Isn't that slightly confusing? That's maybe a non-existent case, but how would we handle a native driver vs. a FUSE implementation in ports, now that the latter are not prefixed? Is there a plan to tag the old sysutils/fusefs-* ports with, e.g., some 'fusefs' virtual category? That could come in handy when listing which FUSE filesystems are available (in particular with 'make search cat=fusefs'), even if there are other, though less user-friendly, ways to obtain this list. Thanks and regards. -- Olivier Certner signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [RFC] New ports category "fs"
Hi Olivier, Am Wed, Nov 06, 2024 at 05:09:58PM +0100 schrieb Olivier Certner: > Hi Robert, > > I have a few remarks/questions. > > The move implemented two different operations at once: > 1. Grouping sysutils/fusefs-*, and removing the 'fusefs-' port prefix. > 2. Grouping all filesystems-related ports. > > Old sysutils/fusefs-* ports now do not have the 'fusefs-' prefix, but > the packages produced from them still have. Isn't that slightly confusing? > > That's maybe a non-existent case, but how would we handle a native > driver vs. a FUSE implementation in ports, now that the latter are not > prefixed? The main purpose of the new category is to get rid of the sysutils/fusefs- pseudo category. The prefix stays for installed packages so the PKGNAME doesn't change and binary package users do not get a surprise when they try to update. If for some reason there are multiple packages competing for the same name within the filesystems category, a disambiguating prefix may be added as usual. > Is there a plan to tag the old sysutils/fusefs-* ports with, e.g., > some 'fusefs' virtual category? That could come in handy when listing > which FUSE filesystems are available (in particular with 'make search > cat=fusefs'), even if there are other, though less user-friendly, ways > to obtain this list. Right now you can find these easily using "git grep '^USES=.*fuse', though in principle a fusefs (or just fuse) virtual category might be nice. Feel free to propose such a category. I wanted to keep it with just one new category as to raise the chances of this patch passing review (still took over a month). Yours, Robert Clausecker -- () ascii ribbon campaign - for an encoding-agnostic world /\ - against html email - against proprietary attachments
Re: Heads-up: Removal of devel/kyua port
> On Nov 6, 2024, at 13:40, Igor Ostapenko wrote: > > Hi, > > Kyua has been part of base since 13.0, today it means all supported versions. > > The tests in /usr/tests usually have parity with Kyua in base, i.e. even if > we consider older unsupported systems then new features from the latest port > offer limited benefits. Anyway, these cases are not supported. > > So, in order to avoid double work and user confusion, the devel/kyua port is > being considered for removal. > > The motivation of this notification is to collect comments and suggestions in > case if the removal is not a good idea for some reasons. > > > Best regards, > igoro > Hi, I am not exactly sure if the one in 13/stable is the updated one as I merged the latest code into the head and 14/stable. That's why I planned to kill it sometimes during the EOL of 13. But correct me if I am wrong. Kind regards, Moin signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
Re: [RFC] New ports category "fs"
The new category has been committed as "filesystems" following portmgr approval and review. https://cgit.freebsd.org/ports/commit/?id=6e2da9672f79f44048d597f0f61e4646cdeade9d Thank you all for participating in this process. If you are a maintainer of one of the moved ports and would like to move your port back, you can find the individual commits that make up this move on this branch: https://github.com/clausecker/freebsd-ports/tree/fs-unsquashed Yours, Robert Clausecker Am Sun, Sep 29, 2024 at 03:09:09AM +0200 schrieb Robert Clausecker: > Greetings! > > I have just submitted a pull request adding a new category "fs" > for file systems and file system utilities to the ports collection. > See Github for the full patch set: > > https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-ports/pull/302 > > If desired, I can submit this as a DR or PR as well. > > The new category is populated with some 126 ports (that's more than > x11-clocks!) that look like they might be file-system related. > > I was motivated to add this new category when I noticed that many > FUSE file systems were shipped as ports named sysutils/fusefs-$foo, > making sysutils/fusefs- a pseudo-category for FUSE filesystems. > If that's the (anti) pattern, why not make it offical and add a > true category for file system ports? Turns out there are a lot more > than one might think. > > I hope that with this move, we can reduce the load on devel and > sysutils (the two most popular misspellings of misc) and make > file-system related ports easier to find. > > For a full list of affected ports, see the list of commits attached > to the pull request. If you would like to not have your port moved > to fs, please comment or send me an email. > > I would like to kindly ask portmgr to discuss adding the new category > and give approval for me to do so. > > Yours, > Robert Clausecker > > -- > () ascii ribbon campaign - for an encoding-agnostic world > /\ - against html email - against proprietary attachments -- () ascii ribbon campaign - for an encoding-agnostic world /\ - against html email - against proprietary attachments
Heads-up: Removal of devel/kyua port
Hi, Kyua has been part of base since 13.0, today it means all supported versions. The tests in /usr/tests usually have parity with Kyua in base, i.e. even if we consider older unsupported systems then new features from the latest port offer limited benefits. Anyway, these cases are not supported. So, in order to avoid double work and user confusion, the devel/kyua port is being considered for removal. The motivation of this notification is to collect comments and suggestions in case if the removal is not a good idea for some reasons. Best regards, igoro
Re: [RFC] New ports category "fs"
> I wanted to keep it with just one new category as to raise > the chances of this patch passing review (still took > over a month). I sympathize. Thanks for pushing to create this category (I agree 'sysutils' is overloaded) and for your answers. -- Olivier Certner signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Unmaintained FreeBSD ports which are out of date
Dear port maintainers, The portscout new distfile checker has detected that one or more unmaintained ports appears to be out of date. Please take the opportunity to check each of the ports listed below, and if possible and appropriate, submit/commit an update. Please consider also adopting this port. If any ports have already been updated, you can safely ignore the entry. An e-mail will not be sent again for any of the port/version combinations below. Full details can be found at the following URL: http://portscout.freebsd.org/po...@freebsd.org.html Port| Current version | New version +-+ audio/baresip | 3.16.0 | v3.17.0 +-+ devel/py-archinfo | 9.0.5405| v9.2.127 +-+ filesystems/acfgfs | 0.6.3.4 | nightly +-+ filesystems/securefs| 0.14.3 | v1.0.0 +-+ net-mgmt/resource-agents| 4.13.0 | v4.16.0 +-+ security/py-pyvex | 9.0.5405| v9.2.127 +-+ If any of the above results are invalid, please check the following page for details on how to improve portscout's detection and selection of distfiles on a per-port basis: http://portscout.freebsd.org/info/portscout-portconfig.txt Reported by:portscout!
