Hello list,
I'm wondering what the rules/guidelines are for adding functionality to
a port, that is not in the upstream package. I can't find anything about
this in the porters' documentation.
Background:
I'm not a porter myself (planning to be one, but that's irrelevant for
my current quest
Hi Kurt,
On 14/11/2021 16:34, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
You can ask the maintainer if he wants to join upstream, but
if there's no interest, there's no need to pressure one into upstream 8-)
Don't worry: I don't want to pressure anyone into doing anything. :)
But I would like to know how much functi
tream project?
Thanks,
Rob
On 14/11/2021 16:40, Ronald Klop via freebsd-ports wrote:
On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 16:26:23 +0100, Rob LA LAU wrote:
Hello list,
I'm wondering what the rules/guidelines are for adding functionality
to a port, that is not in the upstream package. I can't find
Hi,
On 14/11/2021 16:54, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
Maybe it makes it easier to understand if you tell us the port
in question ?
It won't actually, because I don't want to focus on this 1 buggy script
I found.
My question is not about a single bug in a single script. It's about
FreeBSD policy, tru
Hi again,
On 14/11/2021 19:37, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
I agree. The problem is that this is very difficult to codify
into some policy.
I've done some digging. And actually, Fedora only needs a few words:
"All patches should have an upstream bug link or comment" [1]
This assures that packages stay
And hi again,
On 14/11/2021 19:42, Guido Falsi wrote:
> 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.
True.
But what if we're not talking about 'behaving very differently'. How
Hi,
"Patches should only be applied to make the software run as intended by
its developer. All additional functionality should be integrated upstream
first or, if that's not possible or desirable, should be developed as a
separate project which can then be ported alongside the first port."
Thi
Hi,
On 14/11/2021 20:49, Guido Falsi wrote:
You talk about "adding a periodic script". That is not even a real
modification to the upstream software IMHO. Just adding some glue code
for FreeBSD. If the script does what it advertises, and has no malicious
intent I see nothing wrong with it. If
Hi,
On 15/11/2021 10:21, Guido Falsi wrote:
You look too worried by the "functionality added" part.
Yes, I am worried. Of course I am.
When I first asked my question the day before yesterday, the first
responses were in the line of "port maintainers can do whatever they
want", accompanied by
On 16/11/2021 17:59, Jose Quinteiro wrote:
Openbsd packages come with the following caveat:
> [...]
Every operating system comes with this caveat; OpenBSD just says it out
loud. No BSD, nor any Linux distro, has the resources to go through the
source code of all ported software, to make su
10 matches
Mail list logo
