On 07/15/2011 06:28 PM, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
On 07/15/2011 06:23 PM, Jason Hellenthal wrote:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 11:39:01PM -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
Hey people,
I was looking over old unresolved PR's. I came across this one:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/144597
When I sent a message to the submitter of the PR, the email bounced back
suggesting that the submitter no longer uses that email address.
I don't think it would be too hard to make the port build under the
circumstances he describes. But is ANYONE interested? Would it be
worth investing effort to make this work?
Note that the port has ports@ as its maintainer, so it doesn't look like
there is a lot of interest.
Thanks, Stephen
P.S. This one is related:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/57498
Is this a big bag of worms?
I can see that seems to be fixed, for example, in mail/fetchmail.
Considering that the port version is 5.2p1 and the current version in
stable/8 is 5.4p1 and greater than that for HEAD I would say it would be
much more of a benefit to get the port updated to the latest version and
then work on it from there, otherwise its a loss of time for an outdated
version.
Last time I looked at this port it was a mess with a collection of third
party patches from all over the place which I think lead to a
discrepancy in the update of the port but that's just my opinion. It
would be nice to see a simplified version of this port so it isn't such a
monster to update and have an option for a user supplied patches
directory that stands outside of the tree (user configured path) and it
just blindly attempts to apply what is in that directory. I think this
would help slim it down a little so it can consistently be bumped to a
new revision without hassle.
Something like:
# Defaults to /usr/ports/patches unless path is user specified.
WITH_PATCH_TREE?=/usr/ports/patches
/usr/ports/patches/ # Distributed empty. everything else user created.
|-- net
| `-- wireshark
`-- security
|-- gnupg
`-- openssh-portable
Things like this would certainly make it easier for a consistent user
supplied patch to be kept local for build machines. I can't count the
times on 2 hands and 2 feet that I wanted to patch a port with a local
patch and had to continuously cp(1) a patch back to a ports tree using
rsync(1)
All these are good ideas, but I am not the person to do it. I don't use
this software. I'm going to relinquish responsibility for this PR.
I found some possible maintainers of this port at
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/150493. If either of
them reply, then I'll pick it up again.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
